Julia – I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> Date: Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 4:34 AM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>, 'Mathieu Weill' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía' <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Finn Petersen <FinPet@erst.dk<mailto:FinPet@erst.dk>> Subject: VS: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion: “ Burr Proposal: ? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23. The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.” However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN’s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky’s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today’s call. Best regards, Finn and Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH PPlease consider the environment before printing this email. Fra:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss’ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus! 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) * Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office:+1.202.533.2932 Mobile:+1.202.352.6367 /neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: <no subject> Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings, I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community. We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11 We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together. However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection. We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability. Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed . The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical 1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm’s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it. Package Deal 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) · Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; · Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and · Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). Kavouss