I think you are correct Brett, I’ve just got IRP brain. 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: <Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 4:45 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: "acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>" <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of proposals discussed last night in context of Rec. #11 Becky, Why would your proposal be restricted to the “Board’s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws”? What if GAC consensus advice results in a Board decision that would amend the bylaws or implement some other serious change that is not necessarily in violation of the bylaws? I think the same provision should apply. I propose this version that deletes the “Board’s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws” clause and slightly modifies the final sentence that also referenced violating the bylaws: “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 Board decisions arising from such advice.” Best, Brett ________________________________ BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMGaQ&c...> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 4:26 PM To: Accountability Community Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of proposals discussed last night in context of Rec. #11 I have attempted to set out the proposals discussed last night. Apologies if I have mischaracterized the contributions made by Kavouss and/or Malcolm Aresteh Proposal: Modify Rec. #11/Annex 11 to provide that GAC Advice supported by consensus, defined as general agreement in the absence of a formal objection, may be rejected only by a vote of at least 60% of the Board. All other requirements (e.g., rationale to be provided, etc.) unchanged. This proposal is to modify Recommendation 11 Annex 11 without any change to Recommendation 1 as it stands on 02 February 2016 Hutty Gloss on 60% Threshold: Add language to ensure that supermajority requirement creates no new expectation of approval or otherwise modify the Board’s standard of review of GAC Advice. 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. ? 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. 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>

Dear Becky, Pls kindly maintain my proposal as submitted without any change. I have noted that someone wishes to add to that I disagree. However, should you decide to have a third proposal I wish to know the author of that proposal m *Aresteh Proposal*: Modify Rec. #11/ Annex 11 to provide that GAC Advice supported by consensus, defined as general agreement in the absence of a formal objection, may be rejected only by a vote of at least *60%* of the Board. All other requirements (e.g., rationale to be provided, etc.) unchanged. This proposal is stricly limited to modify Recommendation 11 Annex 11 without any change to Recommendation 1 as it stands on 02 February 2016 Kavouss 2016-02-02 22:51 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

Dear Becky M

2016-02-02 22:48 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>:

...

I think you are correct Brett, I’ve just got IRP brain.

*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: <Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 4:45 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz>, Accountability Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: "acct-staff@icann.org" <acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of proposals discussed last night in context of Rec. #11

Becky,

Why would your proposal be restricted to the “Board’s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws”? What if GAC consensus advice results in a Board decision that would amend the bylaws or implement some other serious change that is not necessarily in violation of the bylaws? I think the same provision should apply.

I propose this version that deletes the “Board’s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws” clause and slightly modifies the final sentence that also referenced violating the bylaws:

“*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 Board decisions arising from such advice.”*

Best,

Brett

------------------------------ BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMGaQ&c...>

*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Burr, Becky *Sent:* Tuesday, February 02, 2016 4:26 PM *To:* Accountability Community *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of proposals discussed last night in context of Rec. #11

I have attempted to set out the proposals discussed last night. Apologies if I have mischaracterized the contributions made by Kavouss and/or Malcolm

*Aresteh Proposal*:

Modify Rec. #11/Annex 11 to provide that GAC Advice supported by consensus, defined as general agreement in the absence of a formal objection, may be rejected only by a vote of at least *60%* of the Board. All other requirements (e.g., rationale to be provided, etc.) unchanged. This proposal is to modify Recommendation 11 Annex 11 without any change to Recommendation 1 as it stands on 02 February 2016

*Hutty Gloss on 60% Threshold*: Add language to ensure that supermajority requirement creates no new expectation of approval or otherwise modify the Board’s standard of review of GAC Advice.

*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.*

? 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. *

*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>

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

*Aresteh Proposal*: Modify Rec. #11/ Annex 11 to provide that GAC Advice supported by consensus, defined as general agreement in the absence of a formal objection, may be rejected only by a vote of at least *60%* of the Board. All other requirements (e.g., rationale to be provided, etc.) unchanged. This proposal is stricly limited to modify Recommendation 11 Annex 11 without any change to Recommendation 1 as it stands on 02 February 2016 2016-02-02 22:56 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>:

No worries Kavouss, that is why I listed Malcolm’s suggestion separately.

*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> Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 4:55 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz> Cc: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, " acct-staff@icann.org" <acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of proposals discussed last night in context of Rec. #11

Dear Becky, Pls kindly maintain my proposal as submitted without any change. I have noted that someone wishes to add to that I disagree. However, should you decide to have a third proposal I wish to know the author of that proposal m

*Aresteh Proposal*:

Modify Rec. #11/ Annex 11 to provide that GAC Advice supported by consensus, defined as general agreement in the absence of a formal objection, may be rejected only by a vote of at least *60%* of the Board. All other requirements (e.g., rationale to be provided, etc.) unchanged. This proposal is stricly limited to modify Recommendation 11 Annex 11 without any change to Recommendation 1 as it stands on 02 February 2016

Kavouss

2016-02-02 22:51 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

...

Dear Becky M

2016-02-02 22:48 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>:

...

I think you are correct Brett, I’ve just got IRP brain.

*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: <Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 4:45 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz>, Accountability Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: "acct-staff@icann.org" <acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of proposals discussed last night in context of Rec. #11

Becky,

Why would your proposal be restricted to the “Board’s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws”? What if GAC consensus advice results in a Board decision that would amend the bylaws or implement some other serious change that is not necessarily in violation of the bylaws? I think the same provision should apply.

I propose this version that deletes the “Board’s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws” clause and slightly modifies the final sentence that also referenced violating the bylaws:

“*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 Board decisions arising from such advice.”*

Best,

Brett

------------------------------ BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMGaQ&c...>

*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Burr, Becky *Sent:* Tuesday, February 02, 2016 4:26 PM *To:* Accountability Community *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of proposals discussed last night in context of Rec. #11

I have attempted to set out the proposals discussed last night. Apologies if I have mischaracterized the contributions made by Kavouss and/or Malcolm

*Aresteh Proposal*:

Modify Rec. #11/Annex 11 to provide that GAC Advice supported by consensus, defined as general agreement in the absence of a formal objection, may be rejected only by a vote of at least *60%* of the Board. All other requirements (e.g., rationale to be provided, etc.) unchanged. This proposal is to modify Recommendation 11 Annex 11 without any change to Recommendation 1 as it stands on 02 February 2016

*Hutty Gloss on 60% Threshold*: Add language to ensure that supermajority requirement creates no new expectation of approval or otherwise modify the Board’s standard of review of GAC Advice.

*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.*

? 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. *

*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>

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>

Becky Your proposal did not have such statement Your proposal was clearly mentioned retaining 2/3 and modifying Rec1 to have an overall acceptance. This will cause considerable poblem and create serious of open-ended argument My question to you was to clarify that your question did not refer toeither 60% or simple majority . Let us go back to the discussions on call 81 There was two alternative mentioned by Steve , - 2/3 SIMPLE MAJORITY I proposed a middfle ground 60% You then proposed that 1.MOD. Rec 1 in disabling GAC not to participate in ommunity empowering exercise when IRP is invoked by community for Board's actions exceeding its Mission and 2. Retain 2/3 as contained in Rec 11 Annex 11 YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR PROPOSAL iT IS NOT ADMITTED. We agreed to work on your initial proposal and mine Now you implictly changing your proposal Disagreed Regards Kavouss 2016-02-02 23:10 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>:

UPDATED:

I have attempted to set out the proposals discussed last night.

*Aresteh Proposal*:

Modify Rec. #11/ Annex 11 to provide that GAC Advice supported by consensus, defined as general agreement in the absence of a formal objection, may be rejected only by a vote of at least *60%* of the Board. All other requirements (e.g., rationale to be provided, etc.) unchanged. This proposal is strictly limited to Recommendation 11 Annex 11 without any change to Recommendation 1 as it stands on 02 February 2016.

*Hutty Gloss on 60% Threshold*: Add language to ensure that supermajority requirement creates no new expectation of approval or otherwise modify the Board’s standard of review of GAC Advice.

*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 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. *

Kavouss has asked whether my proposal is paired to a 66% threshold, 60% threshold or simple majority for rejecting GAC Advice. It is not inconsistent with any of those outcomes.

*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>

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

When I originally proposed this approach it was in the context of the 2/3rds threshold. I can still get behind that, but I do not think my proposal is at all is inconsistent with a 60% threshold. I am interested in finding a compromise or series of compromises that addresses the legitimate concerns still being expressed by CCWG members and participants, and by the membership of the GNSO more broadly, and that allows us to reach closure on the CCWG-Accountability Proposal. Frankly, listening to the conversation last night I don’t think there is sufficient support for your proposal or my proposal by itself – but MAYBE we can create consensus around the combination. So I am not standing on ceremony. 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: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 5:24 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, "acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>" <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of proposals discussed last night in context of Rec. #11 Becky Your proposal did not have such statement Your proposal was clearly mentioned retaining 2/3 and modifying Rec1 to have an overall acceptance. This will cause considerable poblem and create serious of open-ended argument My question to you was to clarify that your question did not refer toeither 60% or simple majority . Let us go back to the discussions on call 81 There was two alternative mentioned by Steve , - 2/3 SIMPLE MAJORITY I proposed a middfle ground 60% You then proposed that 1.MOD. Rec 1 in disabling GAC not to participate in ommunity empowering exercise when IRP is invoked by community for Board's actions exceeding its Mission and 2. Retain 2/3 as contained in Rec 11 Annex 11 YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR PROPOSAL iT IS NOT ADMITTED. We agreed to work on your initial proposal and mine Now you implictly changing your proposal Disagreed Regards Kavouss 2016-02-02 23:10 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>: UPDATED: I have attempted to set out the proposals discussed last night. Aresteh Proposal: Modify Rec. #11/ Annex 11 to provide that GAC Advice supported by consensus, defined as general agreement in the absence of a formal objection, may be rejected only by a vote of at least 60% of the Board. All other requirements (e.g., rationale to be provided, etc.) unchanged. This proposal is strictly limited to Recommendation 11 Annex 11 without any change to Recommendation 1 as it stands on 02 February 2016. Hutty Gloss on 60% Threshold: Add language to ensure that supermajority requirement creates no new expectation of approval or otherwise modify the Board’s standard of review of GAC Advice. 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 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. Kavouss has asked whether my proposal is paired to a 66% threshold, 60% threshold or simple majority for rejecting GAC Advice. It is not inconsistent with any of those outcomes. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office:+1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile:+1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>/neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=9D893Kh4NksD_ktj-zlY67hTzAdRoiyc6UfVAQ7ilwI&s=SNQUAaF5jKY_5NIUnFPfFCyeKPnpoqpeP9_Wxv6SJjI&e=>

Dear Becky Pls take out my proposal from the Table I formally withdraw MY PROPOSAL Tks Kavouss 2016-02-02 23:34 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

Becky Your proposal did not have such statement Your proposal was clearly mentioned retaining 2/3 and modifying Rec1 to have an overall acceptance. This will cause considerable poblem and create serious of open-ended argument My question to you was to clarify that your question did not refer toeither 60% or simple majority . Let us go back to the discussions on call 81 There was two alternative mentioned by Steve , - 2/3 SIMPLE MAJORITY I proposed a middfle ground 60% You then proposed that 1.MOD. Rec 1 in disabling GAC not to participate in ommunity empowering exercise when IRP is invoked by community for Board's actions exceeding its Mission and 2. Retain 2/3 as contained in Rec 11 Annex 11 YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR PROPOSAL IT IS NOT ADMITTED. We agreed to work on your initial proposal and mine Now you implictly changing your proposal Disagree TO THAT course of action I case you insist I WILL IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAW MY PROPOSAL AND THEN WE GO BACK TO ccwg and rediscuss REC 11 Please kindly clarify your position Once again if there would be any link between your proposal and 60% Please remove my proposal from the Table and go ahead with your own proposal only I also disagree with any new proposal .We can not discuss for days and day for receiving creative proposal Let us be realistic rather than creative. Best Regards Kavouss

2016-02-02 23:24 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

...

Becky Your proposal did not have such statement Your proposal was clearly mentioned retaining 2/3 and modifying Rec1 to have an overall acceptance. This will cause considerable poblem and create serious of open-ended argument My question to you was to clarify that your question did not refer toeither 60% or simple majority . Let us go back to the discussions on call 81 There was two alternative mentioned by Steve , - 2/3 SIMPLE MAJORITY I proposed a middfle ground 60% You then proposed that 1.MOD. Rec 1 in disabling GAC not to participate in ommunity empowering exercise when IRP is invoked by community for Board's actions exceeding its Mission and 2. Retain 2/3 as contained in Rec 11 Annex 11 YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR PROPOSAL iT IS NOT ADMITTED. We agreed to work on your initial proposal and mine Now you implictly changing your proposal Disagreed Regards Kavouss

2016-02-02 23:10 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>:

...

UPDATED:

I have attempted to set out the proposals discussed last night.

*Aresteh Proposal*:

Modify Rec. #11/ Annex 11 to provide that GAC Advice supported by consensus, defined as general agreement in the absence of a formal objection, may be rejected only by a vote of at least *60%* of the Board. All other requirements (e.g., rationale to be provided, etc.) unchanged. This proposal is strictly limited to Recommendation 11 Annex 11 without any change to Recommendation 1 as it stands on 02 February 2016.

*Hutty Gloss on 60% Threshold*: Add language to ensure that supermajority requirement creates no new expectation of approval or otherwise modify the Board’s standard of review of GAC Advice.

*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 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. *

Kavouss has asked whether my proposal is paired to a 66% threshold, 60% threshold or simple majority for rejecting GAC Advice. It is not inconsistent with any of those outcomes.

*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>

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Dear Paul I am very sorry to tell you that: Our mandate is limited to discuss the initial Becky’s proposal and mine only Since I withdrew mine, if you want to make a new proposal that must be submitted to the next meeting of CCWG on 09 Feb. 2016 This group is not a test LAB for multiple number on proposal otherwise we will not end our work till 2017. You can offer your proposal to the next CCWG MEETING If agreed by consensus it will be discussed Best Regards 2016-02-02 23:46 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:

That's ok. If process requires I will advance the Aratesh/Burr proposal under my own name. 😊

-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Tuesday, 02 February 2016, 05:42PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

Dear Becky Pls take out my proposal from the Table I formally withdraw MY PROPOSAL Tks Kavouss

2016-02-02 23:34 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:

Becky Your proposal did not have such statement Your proposal was clearly mentioned retaining 2/3 and modifying Rec1 to have an overall acceptance. This will cause considerable poblem and create serious of open-ended argument My question to you was to clarify that your question did not refer toeither 60% or simple majority . Let us go back to the discussions on call 81 There was two alternative mentioned by Steve , - 2/3 SIMPLE MAJORITY I proposed a middfle ground 60% You then proposed that 1.MOD. Rec 1 in disabling GAC not to participate in ommunity empowering exercise when IRP is invoked by community for Board's actions exceeding its Mission and 2. Retain 2/3 as contained in Rec 11 Annex 11 YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR PROPOSAL IT IS NOT ADMITTED. We agreed to work on your initial proposal and mine Now you implictly changing your proposal Disagree TO THAT course of action I case you insist I WILL IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAW MY PROPOSAL AND THEN WE GO BACK TO ccwg and rediscuss REC 11 Please kindly clarify your position Once again if there would be any link between your proposal and 60% Please remove my proposal from the Table and go ahead with your own proposal only I also disagree with any new proposal .We can not discuss for days and day for receiving creative proposal Let us be realistic rather than creative. Best Regards Kavouss

2016-02-02 23:24 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:

Becky Your proposal did not have such statement Your proposal was clearly mentioned retaining 2/3 and modifying Rec1 to have an overall acceptance. This will cause considerable poblem and create serious of open-ended argument My question to you was to clarify that your question did not refer toeither 60% or simple majority . Let us go back to the discussions on call 81 There was two alternative mentioned by Steve , - 2/3 SIMPLE MAJORITY I proposed a middfle ground 60% You then proposed that 1.MOD. Rec 1 in disabling GAC not to participate in ommunity empowering exercise when IRP is invoked by community for Board's actions exceeding its Mission and 2. Retain 2/3 as contained in Rec 11 Annex 11 YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR PROPOSAL iT IS NOT ADMITTED. We agreed to work on your initial proposal and mine Now you implictly changing your proposal Disagreed Regards Kavouss

2016-02-02 23:10 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aBecky.Burr@neustar.biz>>:

UPDATED:

I have attempted to set out the proposals discussed last night.

*Aresteh Proposal*:

Modify Rec. #11/ Annex 11 to provide that GAC Advice supported by consensus, defined as general agreement in the absence of a formal objection, may be rejected only by a vote of at least *60%* of the Board. All other requirements (e.g., rationale to be provided, etc.) unchanged. This proposal is strictly limited to Recommendation 11 Annex 11 without any change to Recommendation 1 as it stands on 02 February 2016.

*Hutty Gloss on 60% Threshold*: Add language to ensure that supermajority requirement creates no new expectation of approval or otherwise modify the Board’s standard of review of GAC Advice.

*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 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. *

Kavouss has asked whether my proposal is paired to a 66% threshold, 60% threshold or simple majority for rejecting GAC Advice. It is not inconsistent with any of those outcomes.

*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>

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommun...> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

PAUL There is no evidence that such decision was made by consensus People might have said many thing You can not just referring to unilateral statement in transcsript and take it as a consensus proposal Pls transcript is transcrip those people who have spoken must understand that there is no valuse on unilateral decision .We are member of a group any decision for study must be AGREED BY EVERY BODY Regards 2016-02-02 23:54 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:

Kavouss

You are wrong. I read the transcript.

Sorry Paul

-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Tuesday, 02 February 2016, 05:53PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

Dear Paul

I am very sorry to tell you that:

Our mandate is limited to discuss the initial Becky’s proposal and mine only

Since I withdrew mine, if you want to make a new proposal that must be submitted to the next meeting of CCWG on 09 Feb. 2016

This group is not a test LAB for multiple number on proposal otherwise we will not end our work till 2017.

You can offer your proposal to the next CCWG MEETING

If agreed by consensus it will be discussed

Best Regards

2016-02-02 23:46 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3apaul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsul...>

...

:

That's ok. If process requires I will advance the Aratesh/Burr proposal under my own name. 😊

-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Tuesday, 02 February 2016, 05:42PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:

Dear Becky Pls take out my proposal from the Table I formally withdraw MY PROPOSAL Tks Kavouss

2016-02-02 23:34 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:

Becky Your proposal did not have such statement Your proposal was clearly mentioned retaining 2/3 and modifying Rec1 to have an overall acceptance. This will cause considerable poblem and create serious of open-ended argument My question to you was to clarify that your question did not refer toeither 60% or simple majority . Let us go back to the discussions on call 81 There was two alternative mentioned by Steve , - 2/3 SIMPLE MAJORITY I proposed a middfle ground 60% You then proposed that 1.MOD. Rec 1 in disabling GAC not to participate in ommunity empowering exercise when IRP is invoked by community for Board's actions exceeding its Mission and 2. Retain 2/3 as contained in Rec 11 Annex 11 YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR PROPOSAL IT IS NOT ADMITTED. We agreed to work on your initial proposal and mine Now you implictly changing your proposal Disagree TO THAT course of action I case you insist I WILL IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAW MY PROPOSAL AND THEN WE GO BACK TO ccwg and rediscuss REC 11 Please kindly clarify your position Once again if there would be any link between your proposal and 60% Please remove my proposal from the Table and go ahead with your own proposal only I also disagree with any new proposal .We can not discuss for days and day for receiving creative proposal Let us be realistic rather than creative. Best Regards Kavouss

2016-02-02 23:24 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:

Becky Your proposal did not have such statement Your proposal was clearly mentioned retaining 2/3 and modifying Rec1 to have an overall acceptance. This will cause considerable poblem and create serious of open-ended argument My question to you was to clarify that your question did not refer toeither 60% or simple majority . Let us go back to the discussions on call 81 There was two alternative mentioned by Steve , - 2/3 SIMPLE MAJORITY I proposed a middfle ground 60% You then proposed that 1.MOD. Rec 1 in disabling GAC not to participate in ommunity empowering exercise when IRP is invoked by community for Board's actions exceeding its Mission and 2. Retain 2/3 as contained in Rec 11 Annex 11 YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR PROPOSAL iT IS NOT ADMITTED. We agreed to work on your initial proposal and mine Now you implictly changing your proposal Disagreed Regards Kavouss

2016-02-02 23:10 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aBecky.Burr@neustar.biz>>:

UPDATED:

I have attempted to set out the proposals discussed last night.

*Aresteh Proposal*:

Modify Rec. #11/ Annex 11 to provide that GAC Advice supported by consensus, defined as general agreement in the absence of a formal objection, may be rejected only by a vote of at least *60%* of the Board. All other requirements (e.g., rationale to be provided, etc.) unchanged. This proposal is strictly limited to Recommendation 11 Annex 11 without any change to Recommendation 1 as it stands on 02 February 2016.

*Hutty Gloss on 60% Threshold*: Add language to ensure that supermajority requirement creates no new expectation of approval or otherwise modify the Board’s standard of review of GAC Advice.

*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 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. *

Kavouss has asked whether my proposal is paired to a 66% threshold, 60% threshold or simple majority for rejecting GAC Advice. It is not inconsistent with any of those outcomes.

*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>

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommun...> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Dear Mr. Arasteh, I understand where you are coming from. However I don’t believe we have “formal” proposals. And so we can’t restrict participants from voicing support for one, or another or a combination of proposals; or opposition to one, or another or a combination of proposals. If a CO knows that a particular option is absolutely a non-starter, they are certainly welcomed to let the meeting know. We have a couple of meetings to try and make progress. I think we can be confident that the co-chairs will competently run things, as they have done so up to now, to progress the work as best they can towards consensus. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 6:21 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; gac@icann.org; gac@gac.icann.org; <gac-leadership@icann.org> <gac-leadership@icann.org>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org; Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of proposals discussed last night in context of Rec. #11 Dear CCWG members and participants Dear GAC Members At CCWG call 81 ,in discussing REC.11 Annex 11 there was two alternatives for rejection of GAC Advice by the Board 1. 2/3 Majority 2. Simple MAJORITY Since there was a lengthy discussion, I proposed a compromise of 60% instead of THRESHOLD IN 1) and 2) above WITHOUT TOUCHING ANY ELEMENT OF rec.1 which was accepted by consensus Someone talked about a creative action and proposed to retain 2/3 Majority in Rec.11 .Annex 11 but modify REC 1 by adding a phrase at paragraph 23 of that Rec , if I am not mistaken. That proposal was made by Beckie . These two proposal were on the table without being mutually inclusive Today I observed that people not only wants to Modify Rec 1 ; disabling GAC to exercise its community power not to be counted as one of the TWO SO/AC IN CASE other part of comity invoke IRP in regard with ICANN action relating to GAC Advice alleged to exceed ICANN Mission while maintaining 2/3 majority in Rec 11 BUT ALSO LOWERING THAT THRESHOLD TO 60% This combination is inconsistent with my proposal Moreover such course of action has not formally been approved, even if unilaterally suggested by some people at the meeting and thus such amended proposal was not formally given to Beckie Group to discuss . Since the proponent of amended BECKIE PROPOSAL insisting on his views, I have formally withdrawn my initial 60% threshold proposal and stated that apart from Beckie initial proposal, no other alternative proposal could discussed at Beckie’s group without the approval of CCWG Regards Kavouss . 2016-02-02 23:58 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: PAUL There is no evidence that such decision was made by consensus People might have said many thing You can not just referring to unilateral statement in transcsript and take it as a consensus proposal Pls transcript is transcrip those people who have spoken must understand that there is no valuse on unilateral decision .We are member of a group any decision for study must be AGREED BY EVERY BODY Regards 2016-02-02 23:54 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>: Kavouss You are wrong. I read the transcript. Sorry Paul -- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Tuesday, 02 February 2016, 05:53PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear Paul I am very sorry to tell you that: Our mandate is limited to discuss the initial Becky’s proposal and mine only Since I withdrew mine, if you want to make a new proposal that must be submitted to the next meeting of CCWG on 09 Feb. 2016 This group is not a test LAB for multiple number on proposal otherwise we will not end our work till 2017. You can offer your proposal to the next CCWG MEETING If agreed by consensus it will be discussed Best Regards 2016-02-02 23:46 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3apaul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>: That's ok. If process requires I will advance the Aratesh/Burr proposal under my own name. 😊 -- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Tuesday, 02 February 2016, 05:42PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear Becky Pls take out my proposal from the Table I formally withdraw MY PROPOSAL Tks Kavouss 2016-02-02 23:34 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Becky Your proposal did not have such statement Your proposal was clearly mentioned retaining 2/3 and modifying Rec1 to have an overall acceptance. This will cause considerable poblem and create serious of open-ended argument My question to you was to clarify that your question did not refer toeither 60% or simple majority . Let us go back to the discussions on call 81 There was two alternative mentioned by Steve , - 2/3 SIMPLE MAJORITY I proposed a middfle ground 60% You then proposed that 1.MOD. Rec 1 in disabling GAC not to participate in ommunity empowering exercise when IRP is invoked by community for Board's actions exceeding its Mission and 2. Retain 2/3 as contained in Rec 11 Annex 11 YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR PROPOSAL IT IS NOT ADMITTED. We agreed to work on your initial proposal and mine Now you implictly changing your proposal Disagree TO THAT course of action I case you insist I WILL IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAW MY PROPOSAL AND THEN WE GO BACK TO ccwg and rediscuss REC 11 Please kindly clarify your position Once again if there would be any link between your proposal and 60% Please remove my proposal from the Table and go ahead with your own proposal only I also disagree with any new proposal .We can not discuss for days and day for receiving creative proposal Let us be realistic rather than creative. Best Regards Kavouss 2016-02-02 23:24 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Becky Your proposal did not have such statement Your proposal was clearly mentioned retaining 2/3 and modifying Rec1 to have an overall acceptance. This will cause considerable poblem and create serious of open-ended argument My question to you was to clarify that your question did not refer toeither 60% or simple majority . Let us go back to the discussions on call 81 There was two alternative mentioned by Steve , - 2/3 SIMPLE MAJORITY I proposed a middfle ground 60% You then proposed that 1.MOD. Rec 1 in disabling GAC not to participate in ommunity empowering exercise when IRP is invoked by community for Board's actions exceeding its Mission and 2. Retain 2/3 as contained in Rec 11 Annex 11 YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR PROPOSAL iT IS NOT ADMITTED. We agreed to work on your initial proposal and mine Now you implictly changing your proposal Disagreed Regards Kavouss 2016-02-02 23:10 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aBecky.Burr@neustar.biz>>: UPDATED: I have attempted to set out the proposals discussed last night. Aresteh Proposal: Modify Rec. #11/ Annex 11 to provide that GAC Advice supported by consensus, defined as general agreement in the absence of a formal objection, may be rejected only by a vote of at least 60% of the Board. All other requirements (e.g., rationale to be provided, etc.) unchanged. This proposal is strictly limited to Recommendation 11 Annex 11 without any change to Recommendation 1 as it stands on 02 February 2016. Hutty Gloss on 60% Threshold: Add language to ensure that supermajority requirement creates no new expectation of approval or otherwise modify the Board’s standard of review of GAC Advice. 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 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. Kavouss has asked whether my proposal is paired to a 66% threshold, 60% threshold or simple majority for rejecting GAC Advice. It is not inconsistent with any of those outcomes. 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> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommun...> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Well done.  Humorous yet compelling.  I cede any claim to Paul's proposal back to you. -- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Tuesday, 02 February 2016, 07:15PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com> :

Dear Co-Chairs,

I do not think there is any procedure in the CCWG by which a proposal continues to be controlled by the party who originally proposed it.  We are not running under any parliamentary motion rules (e.g., Robert's Rules of Order) that might possibly provide for such a concept.  As such, any attempt to "withdraw" a proposal up for consideration must be deemed null and void and of no effect.

Furthermore, I would note that the proposal, although originally made by Kavouss in a long and multi-branched email string, received no attention until I placed it in an entirely new email and brought it to the specific attention of the CCWG.  It was my email that initiated discussion of the 60% proposal.  Therefore, I think it should more appropriately be called my proposal in any event.  I graciously allowed it to be called "Kavouss's proposal"; however, based on the facts, that is clearly a misnomer, since the work of the group is based on my email.  I would therefore request that the 60% proposal henceforth be called "Greg's Proposal."

Greg

P.S.

For the avoidance of doubt, I hereby relinquish all right, claim and interest in the proposal, include without limitation any purported right to control its modification or combination with any proposal now in existence or hereafter proposed, except to the extent that I, as a participant, have an equal right with all other participants to discuss, agree with, disagree with, and propose modifications to such proposal or combination with any proposal in existence or hereafter proposed.  For purposes of clarity, I also waive all rights of publicity and privacy, trademark rights, moral rights, data rights, droit moral (to the extent different from "moral rights"), droit d'seigneur and naming rights, solely in connection with the use of the term "Greg's Proposal" in CCWG meetings, email lists, transcripts, recordings, Adobe Chat, Adobe Notes, oral conversation, sidebar emails, Skype conversations, Facebook posts or messages and Twitter "tweets" to refer to the proposal that the voting threshold by which the ICANN Board must "reject" or "determine to take an action inconsistent with" GAC "Advice" (meaning advice arrived at by the now-current definition of consensus formally used by the GAC) when the ICANN Board, in it sole discretion but consistent with applicable law, within its mission and in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws and any applicable procedures, votes on such "rejection" or "determination."

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com > wrote:

...

Dear CCWG members and participants Dear GAC Members   At CCWG call 81 ,in discussing REC.11 Annex 11 there was two alternatives for rejection of GAC Advice by the Board * 2/3 Majority * Simple MAJORITY Since there was a lengthy discussion, I proposed a compromise of 60% instead of THRESHOLD IN 1) and 2) above WITHOUT TOUCHING ANY ELEMENT OF rec.1 which was accepted by consensus Someone talked about a creative action and proposed to retain 2/3 Majority in Rec.11 .Annex 11 but modify REC 1 by adding a phrase at paragraph 23 of that Rec , if I am not mistaken. That proposal was made by Beckie . These two proposal were on the table without being mutually inclusive Today I observed that people not only wants to Modify Rec 1 ; disabling GAC to exercise its community power   not to be counted as one of the TWO SO/AC   IN CASE other part of comity invoke IRP in regard with ICANN action relating to GAC Advice alleged to exceed ICANN Mission   while maintaining 2/3 majority in Rec 11 BUT ALSO LOWERING THAT THRESHOLD TO 60% This combination is inconsistent with my proposal Moreover such course of action has not formally been approved, even if   unilaterally suggested by some people at the meeting and thus such amended proposal was not formally given to Beckie Group to discuss . Since the proponent of amended BECKIE PROPOSAL insisting on his views, I   have   formally withdrawn my initial 60% threshold proposal and stated that apart from Beckie initial proposal , no other alternative proposal could discussed at Beckie’s group without the approval of CCWG Regards Kavouss     .

2016-02-02 23:58 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com > :

...

PAUL There is no evidence that such decision was made by consensus People might have said many thing You can not just referring to unilateral statement in transcsript and take it as a consensus proposal Pls transcript is transcrip those people who have spoken must understand that there is no valuse on unilateral decision .We are member of a group any  decision for study must be AGREED BY EVERY BODY Regards

2016-02-02 23:54 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com > :

...

Kavouss You are wrong.  I read the transcript. Sorry Paul -- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Tuesday, 02 February 2016, 05:53PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com >:

...

Dear Paul I am very sorry to tell you that: Our mandate is limited to discuss the   initial Becky’s   proposal and mine only Since I withdrew mine, if you want to make a new proposal that must be submitted to the next meeting of CCWG on 09 Feb. 2016 This group is not a test LAB for multiple number on proposal otherwise we will not end our work till 2017. You can offer your proposal to the next CCWG MEETING If agreed by consensus it will be discussed Best Regards

2016-02-02 23:46 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com > :

...

That's ok.  If process requires I will advance the Aratesh/Burr proposal under my own name.  😊 -- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Tuesday, 02 February 2016, 05:42PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com >:

>Dear Becky >Pls take out my proposal from the Table >I formally withdraw  MY PROPOSAL >Tks Kavouss > >2016-02-02 23:34 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com > : >>Becky >>Your proposal did not have such statement >>Your proposal was clearly mentioned retaining 2/3 and modifying Rec1 to have an overall acceptance. >>This will cause considerable poblem and create serious of open-ended argument >>My question to you was to clarify that your question did not refer toeither 60% or simple majority . Let us go back to the discussions on call 81 There was two alternative mentioned by Steve , >>- 2/3 >>SIMPLE MAJORITY >>I proposed a middfle ground 60% >>You then proposed that >>1.MOD. Rec 1  in disabling GAC  not to participate in ommunity empowering exercise when IRP is invoked by community for Board's actions exceeding its Mission and >>2. Retain 2/3 as contained in Rec 11 Annex 11 >>YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR PROPOSAL >>IT IS NOT ADMITTED. We agreed to work on your initial proposal and mine >>Now you implictly changing your proposal >>Disagree TO THAT course of action >>I case you insist I WILL IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAW MY PROPOSAL AND THEN WE GO BACK TO ccwg and rediscuss REC 11 >>Please kindly clarify your position >>Once again if there would be any link between your proposal and 60% Please remove my proposal from the Table and go ahead with your own proposal only >>I also disagree with any new proposal .We can not discuss for days and day for receiving creative proposal >>Let us be realistic rather than creative. >>Best Regards >>Kavouss    >> >>2016-02-02 23:24 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com > : >>>Becky >>>Your proposal did not have such statement >>>Your proposal was clearly mentioned retaining 2/3 and modifying Rec1 to have an overall acceptance. >>>This will cause considerable poblem and create serious of open-ended argument >>>My question to you was to clarify that your question did not refer toeither 60% or simple majority . Let us go back to the discussions on call 81 There was two alternative mentioned by Steve , >>>- 2/3 >>>SIMPLE MAJORITY >>>I proposed a middfle ground 60% >>>You then proposed that >>>1.MOD. Rec 1  in disabling GAC  not to participate in ommunity empowering exercise when IRP is invoked by community for Board's actions exceeding its Mission and >>>2. Retain 2/3 as contained in Rec 11 Annex 11 >>>YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR PROPOSAL >>>iT IS NOT ADMITTED. We agreed to work on your initial proposal and mine >>>Now you implictly changing your proposal >>>Disagreed >>>Regards >>>Kavouss >>> >>> >>> >>>2016-02-02 23:10 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky < Becky.Burr@neustar.biz > : >>>>UPDATED: >>>> >>>>I have attempted to set out the proposals discussed last night. >>>>  >>>>Aresteh Proposal : >>>>  >>>>Modify Rec. #11/ Annex 11 to provide that GAC Advice supported by consensus, defined as general agreement in the absence of a formal objection, may be rejected only by a vote of at least 60% of the Board.  All other requirements (e.g., rationale to be provided, etc.) unchanged.  This proposal is strictly limited to Recommendation 11 Annex 11 without any change to Recommendation 1 as it stands on 02 February 2016. >>>>  >>>>Hutty Gloss on 60% Threshold :  Add language to ensure that supermajority requirement creates no new expectation of approval or otherwise modify the Board’s standard of review of GAC Advice.   >>>>  >>>>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 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.   >>>> >>>>Kavouss has asked whether my proposal is paired to a 66% threshold, 60% threshold or simple majority for rejecting GAC Advice.  It is not inconsistent with any of those outcomes. >>>> >>>>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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>>>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >>>> >>> >> > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Hi Kavouss, I hope you are well, my friend. I personally would like to see the transition completed during my lifetime. However if we are going to go down this road of having to make new proposals and delay things, not my preference, I hereby propose we accept and approve Becky Burr's creative and much welcome modification of recommendation 11 and, further, revert to the status quo of a majority Board override of GAC advice. I should make it clear that I prefer Keith's proposal to combine Becky's and Kavouss' 60 per cent model, approve it and move on to solving whatever other problems remain. However if we are going to dwiddle and dwaddle, solving the GNSO's concern about the 1-10-11 interaction is best met initially by my proposal above. I was willing to accept the 60 per cent solution only because I did not want to pass this work on to any grandchildren I may some day have. If we're going to lose time regardless because of the desire of my GAC colleague, whom I hold in the highest esteem, I'd like to propose a Burr plus majority plan. Sad. Kind Regards, Ed Morris Sent from my iPhone

On 2 Feb 2016, at 23:26, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear CCWG members and participants

Dear GAC Members

At CCWG call 81 ,in discussing REC.11 Annex 11 there was two alternatives for rejection of GAC Advice by the Board

2/3 Majority Simple MAJORITY

Since there was a lengthy discussion, I proposed a compromise of 60% instead of THRESHOLD IN 1) and 2) above WITHOUT TOUCHING ANY ELEMENT OF rec.1 which was accepted by consensus

Someone talked about a creative action and proposed to retain 2/3 Majority in Rec.11 .Annex 11 but modify REC 1 by adding a phrase at paragraph 23 of that Rec , if I am not mistaken.

That proposal was made by Beckie .

These two proposal were on the table without being mutually inclusive

Today I observed that people not only wants to Modify Rec 1 ; disabling GAC to exercise its community power not to be counted as one of the TWO SO/AC IN CASE other part of comity invoke IRP in regard with ICANN action relating to GAC Advice alleged to exceed ICANN Mission while maintaining 2/3 majority in Rec 11 BUT ALSO LOWERING THAT THRESHOLD TO 60%

This combination is inconsistent with my proposal

Moreover such course of action has not formally been approved, even if unilaterally suggested by some people at the meeting and thus such amended proposal was not formally given to Beckie Group to discuss .

Since the proponent of amended BECKIE PROPOSAL insisting on his views,

I have formally withdrawn my initial 60% threshold proposal and stated that apart from Beckie initial proposal, no other alternative proposal could discussed at Beckie’s group without the approval of CCWG

Regards

Kavouss .

2016-02-02 23:58 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

...

PAUL There is no evidence that such decision was made by consensus People might have said many thing You can not just referring to unilateral statement in transcsript and take it as a consensus proposal Pls transcript is transcrip those people who have spoken must understand that there is no valuse on unilateral decision .We are member of a group any decision for study must be AGREED BY EVERY BODY Regards

2016-02-02 23:54 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:

...

Kavouss

You are wrong. I read the transcript.

Sorry Paul

-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android

Tuesday, 02 February 2016, 05:53PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

Dear Paul I am very sorry to tell you that: Our mandate is limited to discuss the initial Becky’s proposal and mine only Since I withdrew mine, if you want to make a new proposal that must be submitted to the next meeting of CCWG on 09 Feb. 2016 This group is not a test LAB for multiple number on proposal otherwise we will not end our work till 2017. You can offer your proposal to the next CCWG MEETING If agreed by consensus it will be discussed Best Regards

2016-02-02 23:46 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>: That's ok. If process requires I will advance the Aratesh/Burr proposal under my own name. 😊

-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android

Tuesday, 02 February 2016, 05:42PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

Dear Becky Pls take out my proposal from the Table I formally withdraw MY PROPOSAL Tks Kavouss

2016-02-02 23:34 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Becky Your proposal did not have such statement Your proposal was clearly mentioned retaining 2/3 and modifying Rec1 to have an overall acceptance. This will cause considerable poblem and create serious of open-ended argument My question to you was to clarify that your question did not refer toeither 60% or simple majority . Let us go back to the discussions on call 81 There was two alternative mentioned by Steve , - 2/3 SIMPLE MAJORITY I proposed a middfle ground 60% You then proposed that 1.MOD. Rec 1 in disabling GAC not to participate in ommunity empowering exercise when IRP is invoked by community for Board's actions exceeding its Mission and 2. Retain 2/3 as contained in Rec 11 Annex 11 YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR PROPOSAL IT IS NOT ADMITTED. We agreed to work on your initial proposal and mine Now you implictly changing your proposal Disagree TO THAT course of action I case you insist I WILL IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAW MY PROPOSAL AND THEN WE GO BACK TO ccwg and rediscuss REC 11 Please kindly clarify your position Once again if there would be any link between your proposal and 60% Please remove my proposal from the Table and go ahead with your own proposal only I also disagree with any new proposal .We can not discuss for days and day for receiving creative proposal Let us be realistic rather than creative. Best Regards Kavouss

2016-02-02 23:24 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Becky Your proposal did not have such statement Your proposal was clearly mentioned retaining 2/3 and modifying Rec1 to have an overall acceptance. This will cause considerable poblem and create serious of open-ended argument My question to you was to clarify that your question did not refer toeither 60% or simple majority . Let us go back to the discussions on call 81 There was two alternative mentioned by Steve , - 2/3 SIMPLE MAJORITY I proposed a middfle ground 60% You then proposed that 1.MOD. Rec 1 in disabling GAC not to participate in ommunity empowering exercise when IRP is invoked by community for Board's actions exceeding its Mission and 2. Retain 2/3 as contained in Rec 11 Annex 11 YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR PROPOSAL iT IS NOT ADMITTED. We agreed to work on your initial proposal and mine Now you implictly changing your proposal Disagreed Regards Kavouss

2016-02-02 23:10 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>: UPDATED:

I have attempted to set out the proposals discussed last night.

Aresteh Proposal:

Modify Rec. #11/ Annex 11 to provide that GAC Advice supported by consensus, defined as general agreement in the absence of a formal objection, may be rejected only by a vote of at least 60% of the Board. All other requirements (e.g., rationale to be provided, etc.) unchanged. This proposal is strictly limited to Recommendation 11 Annex 11 without any change to Recommendation 1 as it stands on 02 February 2016.

Hutty Gloss on 60% Threshold: Add language to ensure that supermajority requirement creates no new expectation of approval or otherwise modify the Board’s standard of review of GAC Advice.

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 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.

Kavouss has asked whether my proposal is paired to a 66% threshold, 60% threshold or simple majority for rejecting GAC Advice. It is not inconsistent with any of those outcomes.

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

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Kavouss Thank you for using a blank line between paragraphs in your latest email. I didn't want to say anything before about this, because I didn't want to seem rude or pedantic; nonetheless it really does make your emails much easier to read. I'd appreciate it if you continue! Thanks again On 02/02/16 23:20, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

Dear CCWG members and participants

Dear GAC Members

At CCWG call 81 ,in discussing REC.11 Annex 11 there was two alternatives for rejection of GAC Advice by the Board

1.

2/3 Majority

2.

Simple MAJORITY

Since there was a lengthy discussion, I proposed a compromise of 60% instead of THRESHOLD IN 1) and 2) above WITHOUT TOUCHING ANY ELEMENT OF rec.1 which was accepted by consensus

Someone talked about a creative action and proposed to retain 2/3 Majority in Rec.11 .Annex 11 but modify REC 1 by adding a phrase at paragraph 23 of that Rec , if I am not mistaken.

That proposal was made by Beckie .

These two proposal were on the table without being mutually inclusive

Today I observed that people not only wants to Modify Rec 1 ; disabling GAC to exercise its community power not to be counted as one of the TWO SO/AC IN CASE other part of comity invoke IRP in regard with ICANN action relating to GAC Advice alleged to exceed ICANN Mission while maintaining 2/3 majority in Rec 11 BUT ALSO LOWERING THAT THRESHOLD TO 60%

This combination is inconsistent with my proposal

Moreover such course of action has not formally been approved, even if unilaterally suggested by some people at the meeting and thus such amended proposal was not formally given to Beckie Group to discuss .

Since the proponent of amended BECKIE PROPOSAL insisting on his views,

*_I have formally withdrawn my initial 60% threshold proposal_*and stated that _apart from Beckie initial proposal_, *no other alternative proposal could discussed at Beckie’s group without the approval of CCWG*

Regards

Kavouss .

2016-02-02 23:58 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:

PAUL There is no evidence that such decision was made by consensus People might have said many thing You can not just referring to unilateral statement in transcsript and take it as a consensus proposal Pls transcript is transcrip those people who have spoken must understand that there is no valuse on unilateral decision .We are member of a group any decision for study must be AGREED BY EVERY BODY Regards

2016-02-02 23:54 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>:

Kavouss

You are wrong. I read the transcript.

Sorry Paul

-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android

Tuesday, 02 February 2016, 05:53PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:

Dear Paul

I am very sorry to tell you that:

Our mandate is limited to discuss the initial Becky’s proposal and mine only

Since I withdrew mine, if you want to make a new proposal that must be submitted to the next meeting of CCWG on 09 Feb. 2016

This group is not a test LAB for multiple number on proposal otherwise we will not end our work till 2017.

You can offer your proposal to the next CCWG MEETING

If agreed by consensus it will be discussed

Best Regards

2016-02-02 23:46 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3apaul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>:

That's ok. If process requires I will advance the Aratesh/Burr proposal under my own name. 😊

-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android

Tuesday, 02 February 2016, 05:42PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:

Dear Becky Pls take out my proposal from the Table I formally withdraw MY PROPOSAL Tks Kavouss

2016-02-02 23:34 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:

Becky Your proposal did not have such statement Your proposal was clearly mentioned retaining 2/3 and modifying Rec1 to have an overall acceptance. This will cause considerable poblem and create serious of open-ended argument My question to you was to clarify that your question did not refer toeither 60% or simple majority . Let us go back to the discussions on call 81 There was two alternative mentioned by Steve , - 2/3 SIMPLE MAJORITY I proposed a middfle ground 60% You then proposed that 1.MOD. Rec 1 in disabling GAC not to participate in ommunity empowering exercise when IRP is invoked by community for Board's actions exceeding its Mission and 2. Retain 2/3 as contained in Rec 11 Annex 11 YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR PROPOSAL IT IS NOT ADMITTED. We agreed to work on your initial proposal and mine Now you implictly changing your proposal Disagree TO THAT course of action I case you insist I WILL IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAW MY PROPOSAL AND THEN WE GO BACK TO ccwg and rediscuss REC 11 Please kindly clarify your position Once again if there would be any link between your proposal and 60% Please remove my proposal from the Table and go ahead with your own proposal only I also disagree with any new proposal .We can not discuss for days and day for receiving creative proposal Let us be realistic rather than creative. Best Regards Kavouss

2016-02-02 23:24 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:

Becky Your proposal did not have such statement Your proposal was clearly mentioned retaining 2/3 and modifying Rec1 to have an overall acceptance. This will cause considerable poblem and create serious of open-ended argument My question to you was to clarify that your question did not refer toeither 60% or simple majority . Let us go back to the discussions on call 81 There was two alternative mentioned by Steve , - 2/3 SIMPLE MAJORITY I proposed a middfle ground 60% You then proposed that 1.MOD. Rec 1 in disabling GAC not to participate in ommunity empowering exercise when IRP is invoked by community for Board's actions exceeding its Mission and 2. Retain 2/3 as contained in Rec 11 Annex 11 YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR PROPOSAL iT IS NOT ADMITTED. We agreed to work on your initial proposal and mine Now you implictly changing your proposal Disagreed Regards Kavouss

2016-02-02 23:10 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aBecky.Burr@neustar.biz>>:

UPDATED:

I have attempted to set out the proposals discussed last night. ____

___ ___

_Aresteh Proposal_:____

Modify Rec. #11/ Annex 11 to provide that GAC Advice supported by consensus, defined as general agreement in the absence of a formal objection, may be rejected only by a vote of at least *60%* of the Board. All other requirements (e.g., rationale to be provided, etc.) unchanged. This proposal is strictly limited to Recommendation 11 Annex 11 without any change to Recommendation 1 as it stands on 02 February 2016.____

_Hutty Gloss on 60% Threshold_: Add language to ensure that supermajority requirement creates no new expectation of approval or otherwise modify the Board’s standard of review of GAC Advice. ____

_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 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. ____/

Kavouss has asked whether my proposal is paired to a 66% threshold, 60% threshold or simple majority for rejecting GAC Advice. It is not inconsistent with any of those outcomes.

*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>____

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommun...> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Dear Co-Chairs, due to the formatting it is extremely difficult to read, but when I look it up I find http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/know+where+one+is+coming+from stating: "to understand someone's motivation; to understand and relate to someone's position" so this is hardly offensive, in fact quite the opposite. I am not so much concerned as to who's name is attached to the 60% (or any) proposal and as we are supposed to be consensus driven it is not, as someone else has written already not a motion in the sense of a deliberative organization to be debated, voted and passed, rejected or withdrawn. If it is good we can take it up no matter who said it first. The Burr/Hutty language does not amend (change) the 60% proposal, it accompanies it. el On 2016-02-03 10:13, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

*1. REPLY TO MIKE* Dear Mr. Chartier ( you called me Mr. Arasteh then I have to do and apply the same rule calling you Mr. Chartier9 Thanky you for your message

You said at the begining of your message the following

*Quote*

/"Dear Mr. Arasteh,____/ /I understand where you are coming from."/ Unquote Unfortunately this is not a friendly question and perhaps offensive ,if not insultation I never ever asked and even know where are you come from.This is not my business not business of CCWG . I FULLY RESPECT EVERY AND ALL NATIONS AND SIMILARLY EVERY DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES NO MATTER WHERE THEY COME FROM, AND WHAT AFFILIATION THEY HAVE . The purpose of the CCWG is not raising the question of or statement relating to nationaly , race, colour, religeion, conviction ,political adherance and so on. We are just a group of freinds ,colleagues ,getting together and collaborating with each other to contribute to the ICANN accountability. Therefore, I consider, your question was not only hostile, offensive but totally irrelevant and I therefore respectfully request you to kindly refrain to make such an unfriendly and non ethical statement I think every one of us must respect each other and evenif disagree with one other observe mutual respect and spirit of ICANN code of conduct .

As for the substance of your views on the alternatives 7 options , I fully respect your views as I respects views of others. I think every one of us must

*_2. Reply to Grec_* *_Thank you for your message_* *_You said the following:_* *_Quote:_*

*"Furthermore, I would note that the proposal, although originally made by Kavouss in a long and multi-branched email string, received _no attention_ until I placed it in an entirely new email and brought it to the specific attention of the CCWG. It was my email that initiated discussion of the 60% proposal. Therefore, I think it should more appropriately be called my proposal in any event. _I graciously allowed it to be called "Kavouss's proposal"; _however, based on the facts, that is clearly a misnomer, since the work of the group is based on my email. I would therefore request that the 60% proposal henceforth be called "Greg's Proposal."* *Unquote* *Dear Grec* *What you have stated does not reflect the reality.Befroe I started my e-mails ,painted by you as **multi-branched email string, I raised the issue in a CCWG CALL..havind said that , in my view , it does not matter who proposed the option, I am just interested in the proposal and not the author of the proposal.* *Thank you for your generosity to allow that the proposal be called my proposal ,But I have withdrawn my proposal therefroe your gracious action and generosity is no longer relevant as I HAVE NO PROPOSAL.* *FR ME DOESN^T MATTER IF TAKEN UP BY SOMEBODY LIKE YOU AND BECALLED "GREC PROPOSAL"* Having said that, I respectfully request you to kindly refrain to make such an unfriendly and non ethical statement I think every one of us must respect each other and evenif disagree with one other observe mutual respect and spirit of ICANN code of conduct . Now let us back to work Regards Kavouss * *

2016-02-03 7:03 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>:

Kavouss

Thank you for using a blank line between paragraphs in your latest email.

I didn't want to say anything before about this, because I didn't want to seem rude or pedantic; nonetheless it really does make your emails much easier to read.

I'd appreciate it if you continue!

Thanks again

On 02/02/16 23:20, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

Dear CCWG members and participants

Dear GAC Members

At CCWG call 81 ,in discussing REC.11 Annex 11 there was two alternatives for rejection of GAC Advice by the Board

1.

2/3 Majority

2.

Simple MAJORITY

Since there was a lengthy discussion, I proposed a compromise of 60% instead of THRESHOLD IN 1) and 2) above WITHOUT TOUCHING ANY ELEMENT OF rec.1 which was accepted by consensus

Someone talked about a creative action and proposed to retain 2/3 Majority in Rec.11 .Annex 11 but modify REC 1 by adding a phrase at paragraph 23 of that Rec , if I am not mistaken.

That proposal was made by Beckie .

These two proposal were on the table without being mutually inclusive

Today I observed that people not only wants to Modify Rec 1 ; disabling GAC to exercise its community power not to be counted as one of the TWO SO/AC IN CASE other part of comity invoke IRP in regard with ICANN action relating to GAC Advice alleged to exceed ICANN Mission while maintaining 2/3 majority in Rec 11 BUT ALSO LOWERING THAT THRESHOLD TO 60%

This combination is inconsistent with my proposal

Moreover such course of action has not formally been approved, even if unilaterally suggested by some people at the meeting and thus such amended proposal was not formally given to Beckie Group to discuss .

Since the proponent of amended BECKIE PROPOSAL insisting on his views,

*_I have formally withdrawn my initial 60% threshold proposal_*and stated that _apart from Beckie initial proposal_, *no other alternative proposal could discussed at Beckie’s group without the approval of CCWG*

Regards

Kavouss .

2016-02-02 23:58 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>:

PAUL There is no evidence that such decision was made by consensus People might have said many thing You can not just referring to unilateral statement in transcsript and take it as a consensus proposal Pls transcript is transcrip those people who have spoken must understand that there is no valuse on unilateral decision .We are member of a group any decision for study must be AGREED BY EVERY BODY Regards

2016-02-02 23:54 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>>:

Kavouss

You are wrong. I read the transcript.

Sorry Paul

-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android

Tuesday, 02 February 2016, 05:53PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>:

Dear Paul

I am very sorry to tell you that:

Our mandate is limited to discuss the initial Becky’s proposal and mine only

Since I withdrew mine, if you want to make a new proposal that must be submitted to the next meeting of CCWG on 09 Feb. 2016

This group is not a test LAB for multiple number on proposal otherwise we will not end our work till 2017.

You can offer your proposal to the next CCWG MEETING

If agreed by consensus it will be discussed

Best Regards

2016-02-02 23:46 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>

<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3apaul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>:

That's ok. If process requires I will advance the Aratesh/Burr proposal under my own name. 😊

-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android

Tuesday, 02 February 2016, 05:42PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>

<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:

Dear Becky Pls take out my proposal from the Table I formally withdraw MY PROPOSAL Tks Kavouss

2016-02-02 23:34 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>

<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:

Becky Your proposal did not have such statement Your proposal was clearly mentioned retaining 2/3 and modifying Rec1 to have an overall acceptance. This will cause considerable poblem and create serious of open-ended argument My question to you was to clarify that your question did not refer toeither 60% or simple majority . Let us go back to the discussions on call 81 There was two alternative mentioned by Steve , - 2/3 SIMPLE MAJORITY I proposed a middfle ground 60% You then proposed that 1.MOD. Rec 1 in disabling GAC not to participate in ommunity empowering exercise when IRP is invoked by community for Board's actions exceeding its Mission and 2. Retain 2/3 as contained in Rec 11 Annex 11 YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR PROPOSAL IT IS NOT ADMITTED. We agreed to work on your initial proposal and mine Now you implictly changing your proposal Disagree TO THAT course of action I case you insist I WILL IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAW MY PROPOSAL AND THEN WE GO BACK TO ccwg and rediscuss REC 11 Please kindly clarify your position Once again if there would be any link between your proposal and 60% Please remove my proposal from the Table and go ahead with your own proposal only I also disagree with any new proposal .We can not discuss for days and day for receiving creative proposal Let us be realistic rather than creative. Best Regards Kavouss

2016-02-02 23:24 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>

<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:

Becky Your proposal did not have such statement Your proposal was clearly mentioned retaining 2/3 and modifying Rec1 to have an overall acceptance. This will cause considerable poblem and create serious of open-ended argument My question to you was to clarify that your question did not refer toeither 60% or simple majority . Let us go back to the discussions on call 81 There was two alternative mentioned by Steve , - 2/3 SIMPLE MAJORITY I proposed a middfle ground 60% You then proposed that 1.MOD. Rec 1 in disabling GAC not to participate in ommunity empowering exercise when IRP is invoked by community for Board's actions exceeding its Mission and 2. Retain 2/3 as contained in Rec 11 Annex 11 YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR PROPOSAL iT IS NOT ADMITTED. We agreed to work on your initial proposal and mine Now you implictly changing your proposal Disagreed Regards Kavouss

2016-02-02 23:10 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>

<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aBecky.Burr@neustar.biz>>:

UPDATED:

I have attempted to set out the proposals discussed last night. ____

___ ___

_Aresteh Proposal_:____

Modify Rec. #11/ Annex 11 to provide that GAC Advice supported by consensus, defined as general agreement in the absence of a formal objection, may be rejected only by a vote of at least *60%* of the Board. All other requirements (e.g., rationale to be provided, etc.) unchanged. This proposal is strictly limited to Recommendation 11 Annex 11 without any change to Recommendation 1 as it stands on 02 February 2016.____

_Hutty Gloss on 60% Threshold_: Add language to ensure that supermajority requirement creates no new expectation of approval or otherwise modify the Board’s standard of review of GAC Advice. ____

_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 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. ____/

Kavouss has asked whether my proposal is paired to a 66% threshold, 60% threshold or simple majority for rejecting GAC Advice. It is not inconsistent with any of those outcomes.

*J. Beckwith Burr**** **Neustar, Inc.***/**Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 *Office:***+1.202.533.2932 <tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> *Mobile:***+1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> */**neustar.biz <http://neustar.biz>* <http://www.neustar.biz>____

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list

Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>

<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommun...>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>

<https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

Andrew Let us leave the issue forming As something is evolving which could addressed all these issues Kavouss Sent from my iPhone

On 3 Feb 2016, at 04:54, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

...

On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 11:53:05PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

Our mandate is limited to discuss the initial Becky’s proposal and mine only

I wasn't aware tht we were so procedure bound, and I do not recall those instructions from the chairs. Moreover, my quick review of the transcript from the last call also does not show such a rigid procedural approach. On the contrary, it seems that the goal is to be as flexible as possible with any procedure at all in the interests of forging a widely-acceptable consensus. Such a flexible attitude is what I have previously observed from our co-chairs, so it does not surprise me.

Therefore, I'm wondering on what grounds you think there was such a strict limit on what we could do.

Best regards,

A

-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community