Hi, On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 12:30:09AM +0000, Drazek, Keith wrote:

I know we are all committed to the successful completion of our work in a timely manner. Let's not miss this opportunity to reach consensus and finish our work in a collaborative manner.

I'm not a member of the CCWG, and thus take no position on Kavouss's suggestion itself, but I wish enthusiastically to endorse Keith's exhortation above. The window for completing the transition is barely open any more, and if we can escape through this crack it is very desirable to do so. I hate even to contemplate the alternative. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

Dear All We gave been working for 14 months without a single voting. ICG almost completed its works without voting. CWG did not Vote ,as dar as I knew Hood luck to accept 60% Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone

On 1 Feb 2016, at 01:45, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:

Amen. Let’s not fall on our sword over a single vote.

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2016 7:30 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert; CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution

Thanks to Kavouss for this suggestion, and to Greg for highlighting it. I hope we can all consider this as a possible further compromise solution that might bring us to resolution. I know we are all committed to the successful completion of our work in a timely manner. Let's not miss this opportunity to reach consensus and finish our work in a collaborative manner.

Regards to all. Keith

On Jan 31, 2016, at 6:49 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

All,

I wanted to pluck this suggestion out of the email swamp.

Kavouss made an alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3 -- the alternative threshold is 60%.

Speaking only for myself, this could be a simple but creative way out of the current situation. It is a literally a middle ground between the current majority threshold and the previously proposed 2/3 threshold:

Votes Percentage Result 8/16 50% No 9/16 56.25% Yes, by majority 10/16 62.50% Yes, if by 60% 11/16 68.75% Yes, if by 2/3

This would require one more vote than the current threshold and one less vote than the 2/3 threshold. Win/win?

Greg

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs Pls kindly confirm that you have received my last alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3. This alternative threshould is 60% There has been many cases considered with that level of threshold Pls confirm its recption and confirm actions to be taken before you go to poll Awaiting for your reply Kavouss

[...]

_______________________________________________ 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

No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

I can live with 60% too. Do we need a Public Comment on it? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6s On 1 Feb 2016, 02:31 +0200, Drazek, Keith<kdrazek@verisign.com>, wrote:

Thanks to Kavouss for this suggestion, and to Greg for highlighting it. I hope we can all consider this as a possible further compromise solution that might bring us to resolution. I know we are all committed to the successful completion of our work in a timely manner. Let's not miss this opportunity to reach consensus and finish our work in a collaborative manner.

Regards to all. Keith

On Jan 31, 2016, at 6:49 PM, Greg Shatan<gregshatanipc@gmail.com(mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com)>wrote:

...

All,

I wanted to pluck this suggestion out of the email swamp.

Kavouss made an alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3 -- the alternative threshold is 60%.

Speaking only for myself, this could be a simple but creative way out of the current situation.It is a literally a middle ground between the current majority threshold and the previously proposed 2/3 threshold:

Votes

Percentage

Result

8/16

50%

No

9/16

56.25%

Yes, by majority

10/16

62.50%

Yes, if by 60%

11/16

68.75%

Yes, if by 2/3

This would require one more vote than the current threshold and one less vote than the 2/3 threshold.Win/win?

Greg

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com(mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com)>wrote:

...

Dear Co-Chairs Pls kindly confirm that you have received my last alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3. This alternative threshould is60% There has been many cases considered with that level of threshold Pls confirm its recption and confirm actions to be taken before you go to poll Awaiting for your reply Kavouss

...

...

[...]

...

_______________________________________________ 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(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

Dear Co-Chair I spent my life on international hard decision making sometime fully political. I have been succeded to try ion finding siolutions In World Radiocommunication Conference, 2015, at the last minute, one government moved a motion of order which could be been resulted to voting which everbody disliked I moved another motion of order ( requesting suspension of the meeting for 15 mints) my motion of ordfered in the formal ITU rank superceded the former motion of order and thus accepted. The Plenary suspended its meeting for 15 mintes. During that period I gathered all concerned parties at a cornder and described that a bad Conference is the one which decide on an issue by voting due to the fact that voting signifies division and divergence of views. I encouage all to accept a compromise that I made. The compromise was accepted by the group .We went t back to plenary and that government which moved a motion of order withdrew his motion on the consdition that my compromise be debated, My compromise was in fact immediately accepted even without being debated. That saved the Conferencer deciding on an issue through voting. I have done that many times except one time for which I feel terribly aorry even after many years. Pls kindly take my compromise for 605 of threshold insted of 2/3 ( 66.66 %) Best Regards Kavouss 2016-02-01 13:21 GMT+01:00 Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>:

I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't the arguments against the 2/3 requirement, which is after all 66%, apply just as much to the 60% proposal?

I think Becky's proposal gets much closer to addressing the substance of the concerns raised.

________________________________ Brett Schaefer 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<http://heritage.org/>

On Jan 31, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:

All,

I wanted to pluck this suggestion out of the email swamp.

Kavouss made an alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3 -- the alternative threshold is 60%.

Speaking only for myself, this could be a simple but creative way out of the current situation. It is a literally a middle ground between the current majority threshold and the previously proposed 2/3 threshold:

Votes

Percentage

Result

8/16

50%

No

9/16

56.25%

Yes, by majority

10/16

62.50%

Yes, if by 60%

11/16

68.75%

Yes, if by 2/3

This would require one more vote than the current threshold and one less vote than the 2/3 threshold. Win/win?

Greg

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs Pls kindly confirm that you have received my last alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3. This alternative threshould is 60% There has been many cases considered with that level of threshold Pls confirm its recption and confirm actions to be taken before you go to poll Awaiting for your reply Kavouss

[...]

_______________________________________________ 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://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<; 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

Dear brett Thank you very much for yr message GAC UNANIMOUSLY agreed two years ago as well as in Dublin about 2/3 majority. Believe me I have no strong interest on any issue as you described me . I just wanted to avoid division and maintain unity of CCWG .for this reason I have launched a compromise of 60% instead of 2/3( 66.66%) with the hope we CCWG family remained united and looking for a compromise Kavousd Sent from my iPhone

On 1 Feb 2016, at 14:11, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:

Kavouss, you haven't made any substantive arguments explaining why others should abandon their principled opposition other than an vague threat that the GAC might not like it, which isn't actually clear since we don't know how many in the GAC feel as strongly as you do.

________________________________ Brett Schaefer 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<http://heritage.org/>

__________

On Feb 1, 2016, at 7:50 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear Co-Chair I spent my life on international hard decision making sometime fully political. I have been succeded to try ion finding siolutions In World Radiocommunication Conference, 2015, at the last minute, one government moved a motion of order which could be been resulted to voting which everbody disliked I moved another motion of order ( requesting suspension of the meeting for 15 mints) my motion of ordfered in the formal ITU rank superceded the former motion of order and thus accepted. The Plenary suspended its meeting for 15 mintes. During that period I gathered all concerned parties at a cornder and described that a bad Conference is the one which decide on an issue by voting due to the fact that voting signifies division and divergence of views. I encouage all to accept a compromise that I made. The compromise was accepted by the group .We went t back to plenary and that government which moved a motion of order withdrew his motion on the consdition that my compromise be debated, My compromise was in fact immediately accepted even without being debated. That saved the Conferencer deciding on an issue through voting. I have done that many times except one time for which I feel terribly aorry even after many years. Pls kindly take my compromise for 605 of threshold insted of 2/3 ( 66.66 %) Best Regards Kavouss

2016-02-01 13:21 GMT+01:00 Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>: I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't the arguments against the 2/3 requirement, which is after all 66%, apply just as much to the 60% proposal?

I think Becky's proposal gets much closer to addressing the substance of the concerns raised.

________________________________ Brett Schaefer 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<tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org<http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org/>

On Jan 31, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>> wrote:

All,

I wanted to pluck this suggestion out of the email swamp.

Kavouss made an alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3 -- the alternative threshold is 60%.

Speaking only for myself, this could be a simple but creative way out of the current situation. It is a literally a middle ground between the current majority threshold and the previously proposed 2/3 threshold:

Votes

Percentage

Result

8/16

50%

No

9/16

56.25%

Yes, by majority

10/16

62.50%

Yes, if by 60%

11/16

68.75%

Yes, if by 2/3

This would require one more vote than the current threshold and one less vote than the 2/3 threshold. Win/win?

Greg

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs Pls kindly confirm that you have received my last alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3. This alternative threshould is 60% There has been many cases considered with that level of threshold Pls confirm its recption and confirm actions to be taken before you go to poll Awaiting for your reply Kavouss

[...]

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

Dear Brett I think it id more straight forward to take 60% than Becky ,s proposal not because mine is better but more simpler. Regards I appeal to you and your distinguished colleagues as well as Becky to kindly consider 60% with favourable thought Kavouss Sent from my iPhone

On 1 Feb 2016, at 13:21, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:

I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't the arguments against the 2/3 requirement, which is after all 66%, apply just as much to the 60% proposal?

I think Becky's proposal gets much closer to addressing the substance of the concerns raised.

________________________________ Brett Schaefer 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<http://heritage.org/>

On Jan 31, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:

All,

I wanted to pluck this suggestion out of the email swamp.

Kavouss made an alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3 -- the alternative threshold is 60%.

Speaking only for myself, this could be a simple but creative way out of the current situation. It is a literally a middle ground between the current majority threshold and the previously proposed 2/3 threshold:

Votes

Percentage

Result

8/16

50%

No

9/16

56.25%

Yes, by majority

10/16

62.50%

Yes, if by 60%

11/16

68.75%

Yes, if by 2/3

This would require one more vote than the current threshold and one less vote than the 2/3 threshold. Win/win?

Greg

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs Pls kindly confirm that you have received my last alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3. This alternative threshould is 60% There has been many cases considered with that level of threshold Pls confirm its recption and confirm actions to be taken before you go to poll Awaiting for your reply Kavouss

[...]

_______________________________________________ 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://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<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

Kavouss¹ proposal (Board may reject GAC Advice only with support of 60% of its members) is simple and it is a compromise - essentially midway between a majority and a 2/3rds standard. My proposal attempts to address some of the structural concerns that arise when you look at Recommendations 1, 10 and 11 together. Specifically, it is intended to address the ³2 bites at the apple² situation when (1) the GAC issues Advice, which is then accepted by the Board - even where a majority (but not 60% or 66%) of the Board opposes that and (2) the community would like to consider challenging the Board¹s implementation as exceeding the scope of ICANN¹s Mission. In that situation, the GAC has indicated that it will participate in the escalation decision regarding invocation a community power, for example through an IRP. I propose that we should maintain the current threshold (e.g., no more than 2 SO/ACs object), but that the GAC¹s vote should not be counted to block use of a community power to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. I would note that Jorge notes that this principle should be applied across the Board. I don¹t agree, as I think that GAC Advice is not comparable to the output of, for example, a PDP process. 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> On 2/1/16, 10:26 AM, "Phil Buckingham" <phil@dotadvice.co.uk> wrote:

Dear Kavouss,

Thank you for your compromise proposal/ solution. The CCWG really does need to get over this huge hurdle. I am struggling to keep to up. In preparation for the call tomorrow , could you/ Co Chairs summarise your and Becky ' alternative recommendation. The key question to me is which is easier to implement and the simplest to understand. Many thanks, Phil

-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 01 February 2016 13:35 To: Schaefer, Brett Cc: acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert; CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution

Dear Brett I think it id more straight forward to take 60% than Becky ,s proposal not because mine is better but more simpler. Regards I appeal to you and your distinguished colleagues as well as Becky to kindly consider 60% with favourable thought Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

...

On 1 Feb 2016, at 13:21, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:

I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't the arguments against the 2/3 requirement, which is after all 66%, apply just as much to the 60% proposal?

I think Becky's proposal gets much closer to addressing the substance of the concerns raised.

________________________________ Brett Schaefer 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=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=TnI7iy91U78v r2iGqvQgUvyuD2Gjh7I0sPPGfgh1zlk&e= >

On Jan 31, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:

All,

I wanted to pluck this suggestion out of the email swamp.

Kavouss made an alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3 -- the alternative threshold is 60%.

Speaking only for myself, this could be a simple but creative way out of the current situation. It is a literally a middle ground between the current majority threshold and the previously proposed 2/3 threshold:

Votes

Percentage

Result

8/16

50%

No

9/16

56.25%

Yes, by majority

10/16

62.50%

Yes, if by 60%

11/16

68.75%

Yes, if by 2/3

This would require one more vote than the current threshold and one less vote than the 2/3 threshold. Win/win?

Greg

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs Pls kindly confirm that you have received my last alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3. This alternative threshould is 60% There has been many cases considered with that level of threshold Pls confirm its recption and confirm actions to be taken before you go to poll Awaiting for your reply Kavouss

[...]

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

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbn Y6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&e= <h ttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>

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

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbn Y6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&e= <h ttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>

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

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbn Y6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&e=

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY6b FNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&e=

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY6b FNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&e=

Jorge +1 Kavouss Also appreciate Becky, s proposal but it would be complex to apply and could require restructyring of the oricess I Sent from my iPhone

On 1 Feb 2016, at 17:00, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

Dear Becky

I thank you (again) for your constructive and creative proposal, which tries to address concerns expressed by colleagues in the GNSO.

But I would like to clarify my point again: A PDP proposal might normally be a widely debated product, but there is no guarantee for that. Other parts of the community might feel that the proposal might be inconsistent with the Bylaws. Why should the community IRP be susceptible to be blocked in such a case by the very SO proposing that proposal?

Apart from PDPs if I understand well the mechanics, there might be also other "products" put before the Board by a SO/AC (such as a GNSO Guidance) which might also be considered inconsistent with the Bylaws by other parts of the community. Why should the proposing SO/AC be allowed a "second bite at the apple", with the only exception of the GAC?

I feel this is an issue of applying the same principle to similar situations and although I can understand it at a principle-level I'm still not sure why we should only apply it to decisions of the Board based on GAC advice.

Regards

Jorge

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Montag, 1. Februar 2016 16:49 An: Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk>; 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; 'Schaefer, Brett' <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org; 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net>; 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution

Kavouss¹ proposal (Board may reject GAC Advice only with support of 60% of its members) is simple and it is a compromise - essentially midway between a majority and a 2/3rds standard.

My proposal attempts to address some of the structural concerns that arise when you look at Recommendations 1, 10 and 11 together. Specifically, it is intended to address the ³2 bites at the apple² situation when (1) the GAC issues Advice, which is then accepted by the Board - even where a majority (but not 60% or 66%) of the Board opposes that and (2) the community would like to consider challenging the Board¹s implementation as exceeding the scope of ICANN¹s Mission. In that situation, the GAC has indicated that it will participate in the escalation decision regarding invocation a community power, for example through an IRP. I propose that we should maintain the current threshold (e.g., no more than 2 SO/ACs object), but that the GAC¹s vote should not be counted to block use of a community power to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. I would note that Jorge notes that this principle should be applied across the Board. I don¹t agree, as I think that GAC Advice is not comparable to the output of, for example, a PDP process.

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>

...

On 2/1/16, 10:26 AM, "Phil Buckingham" <phil@dotadvice.co.uk> wrote:

Dear Kavouss,

Thank you for your compromise proposal/ solution. The CCWG really does need to get over this huge hurdle. I am struggling to keep to up. In preparation for the call tomorrow , could you/ Co Chairs summarise your and Becky ' alternative recommendation. The key question to me is which is easier to implement and the simplest to understand. Many thanks, Phil

-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 01 February 2016 13:35 To: Schaefer, Brett Cc: acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert; CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution

Dear Brett I think it id more straight forward to take 60% than Becky ,s proposal not because mine is better but more simpler. Regards I appeal to you and your distinguished colleagues as well as Becky to kindly consider 60% with favourable thought Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

...

...

On 1 Feb 2016, at 13:21, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:

I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't the arguments against the 2/3 requirement, which is after all 66%, apply just as much to the 60% proposal?

I think Becky's proposal gets much closer to addressing the substance of the concerns raised.

________________________________ Brett Schaefer 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=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=TnI7iy91U78v r2iGqvQgUvyuD2Gjh7I0sPPGfgh1zlk&e= >

...

On Jan 31, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:

All,

I wanted to pluck this suggestion out of the email swamp.

Kavouss made an alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3 -- the alternative threshold is 60%.

Speaking only for myself, this could be a simple but creative way out of the current situation. It is a literally a middle ground between the current majority threshold and the previously proposed 2/3 threshold:

Votes

Percentage

Result

8/16

50%

No

9/16

56.25%

Yes, by majority

10/16

62.50%

Yes, if by 60%

11/16

68.75%

Yes, if by 2/3

This would require one more vote than the current threshold and one less vote than the 2/3 threshold. Win/win?

Greg

...

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs Pls kindly confirm that you have received my last alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3. This alternative threshould is 60% There has been many cases considered with that level of threshold Pls confirm its recption and confirm actions to be taken before you go to poll Awaiting for your reply Kavouss

[...]

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

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbn Y6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&e= <h ttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>

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

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbn Y6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&e= <h ttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>

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

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbn Y6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&e=

---

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY6b FNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&e=

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY6b FNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&e=

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

Kavouss, I do not disagree with the 60%, I think it improves the current situation. 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> On 2/1/16, 11:40 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Becky While I fully agree with your vision It would require extensive analysis which at this stage would further delay our work. It may also create additional obstacle that required time. Pls kindly agree with 60% not because I gave suggested but due to its dimple applications d time constrains Regards Kavousd

Sent from my iPhone

...

On 1 Feb 2016, at 16:48, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:

Kavouss¹ proposal (Board may reject GAC Advice only with support of 60% of its members) is simple and it is a compromise - essentially midway between a majority and a 2/3rds standard.

My proposal attempts to address some of the structural concerns that arise when you look at Recommendations 1, 10 and 11 together. Specifically, it is intended to address the ³2 bites at the apple² situation when (1) the GAC issues Advice, which is then accepted by the Board - even where a majority (but not 60% or 66%) of the Board opposes that and (2) the community would like to consider challenging the Board¹s implementation as exceeding the scope of ICANN¹s Mission. In that situation, the GAC has indicated that it will participate in the escalation decision regarding invocation a community power, for example through an IRP. I propose that we should maintain the current threshold (e.g., no more than 2 SO/ACs object), but that the GAC¹s vote should not be counted to block use of a community power to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. I would note that Jorge notes that this principle should be applied across the Board. I don¹t agree, as I think that GAC Advice is not comparable to the output of, for example, a PDP process.

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>

...

On 2/1/16, 10:26 AM, "Phil Buckingham" <phil@dotadvice.co.uk> wrote:

Dear Kavouss,

Thank you for your compromise proposal/ solution. The CCWG really does need to get over this huge hurdle. I am struggling to keep to up. In preparation for the call tomorrow , could you/ Co Chairs summarise your and Becky ' alternative recommendation. The key question to me is which is easier to implement and the simplest to understand. Many thanks, Phil

-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 01 February 2016 13:35 To: Schaefer, Brett Cc: acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert; CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution

Dear Brett I think it id more straight forward to take 60% than Becky ,s proposal not because mine is better but more simpler. Regards I appeal to you and your distinguished colleagues as well as Becky to kindly consider 60% with favourable thought Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

...

...

On 1 Feb 2016, at 13:21, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:

I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't the arguments against the 2/3 requirement, which is after all 66%, apply just as much to the 60% proposal?

I think Becky's proposal gets much closer to addressing the substance of the concerns raised.

________________________________ Brett Schaefer 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__herita ge

.org_&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxd Ya

hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=TnI7iy91U7 8v r2iGqvQgUvyuD2Gjh7I0sPPGfgh1zlk&e= >

...

On Jan 31, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:

All,

I wanted to pluck this suggestion out of the email swamp.

Kavouss made an alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3 -- the alternative threshold is 60%.

Speaking only for myself, this could be a simple but creative way out of the current situation. It is a literally a middle ground between the current majority threshold and the previously proposed 2/3 threshold:

Votes

Percentage

Result

8/16

50%

No

9/16

56.25%

Yes, by majority

10/16

62.50%

Yes, if by 60%

11/16

68.75%

Yes, if by 2/3

This would require one more vote than the current threshold and one less vote than the 2/3 threshold. Win/win?

Greg

...

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs Pls kindly confirm that you have received my last alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3. This alternative threshould is 60% There has been many cases considered with that level of threshold Pls confirm its recption and confirm actions to be taken before you go to poll Awaiting for your reply Kavouss

[...]

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

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an

_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL C_

lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5v bn

Y6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8& e= <h ttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>

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

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an

_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL C_

lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5v bn

Y6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8& e= <h ttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>

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

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an

_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL C_

lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5v bn

Y6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8& e=

---

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_

listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU

Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY 6b FNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&e=

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_

listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU

Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY 6b FNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&e=

Becky, Could you clarify a couple of things for me? First, this would apply to all GAC advice, correct? Second, if GAC is not included, the thresholds for exercising powers 1, 2, 5 and 7 would have to be adjusted to prevent a unanimity requirement for exercising them, correct? Thanks, Brett ________________________________ Brett Schaefer 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<http://heritage.org/> From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 10:49 AM To: Phil Buckingham; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; Schaefer, Brett Cc: acct-staff@icann.org; 'Thomas Rickert'; 'CCWG Accountability' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution Kavouss¹ proposal (Board may reject GAC Advice only with support of 60% of its members) is simple and it is a compromise - essentially midway between a majority and a 2/3rds standard. My proposal attempts to address some of the structural concerns that arise when you look at Recommendations 1, 10 and 11 together. Specifically, it is intended to address the ³2 bites at the apple² situation when (1) the GAC issues Advice, which is then accepted by the Board - even where a majority (but not 60% or 66%) of the Board opposes that and (2) the community would like to consider challenging the Board¹s implementation as exceeding the scope of ICANN¹s Mission. In that situation, the GAC has indicated that it will participate in the escalation decision regarding invocation a community power, for example through an IRP. I propose that we should maintain the current threshold (e.g., no more than 2 SO/ACs object), but that the GAC¹s vote should not be counted to block use of a community power to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. I would note that Jorge notes that this principle should be applied across the Board. I don¹t agree, as I think that GAC Advice is not comparable to the output of, for example, a PDP process. 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://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>> On 2/1/16, 10:26 AM, "Phil Buckingham" <phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>> wrote:

Dear Kavouss,

Thank you for your compromise proposal/ solution. The CCWG really does need to get over this huge hurdle. I am struggling to keep to up. In preparation for the call tomorrow , could you/ Co Chairs summarise your and Becky ' alternative recommendation. The key question to me is which is easier to implement and the simplest to understand. Many thanks, Phil

-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 01 February 2016 13:35 To: Schaefer, Brett Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert; CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution

Dear Brett I think it id more straight forward to take 60% than Becky ,s proposal not because mine is better but more simpler. Regards I appeal to you and your distinguished colleagues as well as Becky to kindly consider 60% with favourable thought Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

...

On 1 Feb 2016, at 13:21, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote:

I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't the arguments against the 2/3 requirement, which is after all 66%, apply just as much to the 60% proposal?

I think Becky's proposal gets much closer to addressing the substance of the concerns raised.

________________________________ Brett Schaefer 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage> .org_&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=TnI7iy91U78v r2iGqvQgUvyuD2Gjh7I0sPPGfgh1zlk&e= >

On Jan 31, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>> wrote:

All,

I wanted to pluck this suggestion out of the email swamp.

Kavouss made an alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3 -- the alternative threshold is 60%.

Speaking only for myself, this could be a simple but creative way out of the current situation. It is a literally a middle ground between the current majority threshold and the previously proposed 2/3 threshold:

Votes

Percentage

Result

8/16

50%

No

9/16

56.25%

Yes, by majority

10/16

62.50%

Yes, if by 60%

11/16

68.75%

Yes, if by 2/3

This would require one more vote than the current threshold and one less vote than the 2/3 threshold. Win/win?

Greg

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs Pls kindly confirm that you have received my last alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3. This alternative threshould is 60% There has been many cases considered with that level of threshold Pls confirm its recption and confirm actions to be taken before you go to poll Awaiting for your reply Kavouss

[...]

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-C> ommunity@icann.org<mailto:ommunity@icann.org>>

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbn Y6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&e= <h ttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<ttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>>

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-C> ommunity@icann.org<mailto:ommunity@icann.org>>

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbn Y6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&e= <h ttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<ttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>>

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-C> ommunity@icann.org<mailto:ommunity@icann.org>>

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbn Y6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&e=

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY6b FNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&e=

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY6b FNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&e=

Hi Steve I feel that alternative 6 would be very difficult to reconcile with the Dublin GAC consensus as several of us have already expressed. Becky's proposal is also on the table and seems to address concerns expressed by gnso colleagues, while not changing the 2/3 which is part of the GAC Dublin consensus. Therefore I feel it is worthwile exploring it further. regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 01.02.2016 um 19:35 schrieb Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>: If we are going to consider alternatives to Rec 11 on our next call, please keep in mind that last week we discussed another alternative that was published in the Rec 11 1st reading document<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Final+Report?preview=/5698...>. On page 1 we listed these 2 alternative ways to address Stress Test 18: 5. Confirm or discuss recommendation for 2/3 threshold (11 votes) for Board to reject GAC advice that was approved by GAC general agreement in the absence of any formal objection. The present threshold is majority (9 votes). CCWGshould evaluatewhether requiring 2 more board votes to reject GAC advice is an appropriate threshold, given that GAC would be required to approve such advice by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection. or 6. Discuss request that GAC advice must be approved by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, under the present threshold for a majority of board to reject GAC advice. We briefly discussed #6 above, as it was consistent with comments from many in CCWG, and reflected the original recommendation from the Stress Test work party in February-2105. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 11:52 AM To: Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>>, 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution Becky, Could you clarify a couple of things for me? First, this would apply to all GAC advice, correct? Second, if GAC is not included, the thresholds for exercising powers 1, 2, 5 and 7 would have to be adjusted to prevent a unanimity requirement for exercising them, correct? Thanks, Brett From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 10:49 AM To: Phil Buckingham; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; Schaefer, Brett Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; 'Thomas Rickert'; 'CCWG Accountability' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution Kavouss¹ proposal (Board may reject GAC Advice only with support of 60% of its members) is simple and it is a compromise - essentially midway between a majority and a 2/3rds standard. My proposal attempts to address some of the structural concerns that arise when you look at Recommendations 1, 10 and 11 together. Specifically, it is intended to address the ³2 bites at the apple² situation when (1) the GAC issues Advice, which is then accepted by the Board - even where a majority (but not 60% or 66%) of the Board opposes that and (2) the community would like to consider challenging the Board¹s implementation as exceeding the scope of ICANN¹s Mission. In that situation, the GAC has indicated that it will participate in the escalation decision regarding invocation a community power, for example through an IRP. I propose that we should maintain the current threshold (e.g., no more than 2 SO/ACs object), but that the GAC¹s vote should not be counted to block use of a community power to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. I would note that Jorge notes that this principle should be applied across the Board. I don¹t agree, as I think that GAC Advice is not comparable to the output of, for example, a PDP process. 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://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz> On 2/1/16, 10:26 AM, "Phil Buckingham" <phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>> wrote:

Dear Kavouss,

Thank you for your compromise proposal/ solution. The CCWG really does need to get over this huge hurdle. I am struggling to keep to up. In preparation for the call tomorrow , could you/ Co Chairs summarise your and Becky ' alternative recommendation. The key question to me is which is easier to implement and the simplest to understand. Many thanks, Phil

-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 01 February 2016 13:35 To: Schaefer, Brett Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert; CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution

Dear Brett I think it id more straight forward to take 60% than Becky ,s proposal not because mine is better but more simpler. Regards I appeal to you and your distinguished colleagues as well as Becky to kindly consider 60% with favourable thought Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

...

On 1 Feb 2016, at 13:21, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote:

I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't the arguments against the 2/3 requirement, which is after all 66%, apply just as much to the 60% proposal?

I think Becky's proposal gets much closer to addressing the substance of the concerns raised.

________________________________ Brett Schaefer 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<http://heritage.org><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage .org_&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=TnI7iy91U78v r2iGqvQgUvyuD2Gjh7I0sPPGfgh1zlk&e= >

On Jan 31, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>> wrote:

All,

I wanted to pluck this suggestion out of the email swamp.

Kavouss made an alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3 -- the alternative threshold is 60%.

Speaking only for myself, this could be a simple but creative way out of the current situation. It is a literally a middle ground between the current majority threshold and the previously proposed 2/3 threshold:

Votes

Percentage

Result

8/16

50%

No

9/16

56.25%

Yes, by majority

10/16

62.50%

Yes, if by 60%

11/16

68.75%

Yes, if by 2/3

This would require one more vote than the current threshold and one less vote than the 2/3 threshold. Win/win?

Greg

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs Pls kindly confirm that you have received my last alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3. This alternative threshould is 60% There has been many cases considered with that level of threshold Pls confirm its recption and confirm actions to be taken before you go to poll Awaiting for your reply Kavouss

[...]

_______________________________________________ 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

Citation to the "GAC Dublin consensus" is quite interesting, when you look at it a bit. First, assuming there were a GAC Dublin consensus on the 2/3 threshold, that does not bind the CCWG nor is the CCWG required to give that consensus any type of deference, aside from the treatment it would give to a position held by any of the Chartering Organizations. It is true that it would be "difficult to reconcile" a majority vote with a 2/3 vote, but that's true of every position of every organization that is different from the CCWG's position. We are under no special obligation to reconcile the CCWG's outcomes with "GAC Dublin consensus." Second, in looking for "GAC Dublin consensus" what I found seem to fall far short of that. Specifically, the GAC Dublin Communique says the following (in a section that is not "GAC Advice"): The GAC recognizes that much progress has been made by the

CCWG-Accountability in its ongoing work, and welcomes the CCWG’s achievements to date and supports the efforts to finalise its proposal for enhancing ICANN accountability as required for the IANA stewardship transition.

In assessing the specific accountability recommendations put forth so far by the CCWG Accountability, the GAC considers that whatever the final outcome of this process may be, the new accountability framework to be agreed upon must preserve the current role of governments in ICANN.

The discussions on Stress Test 18 have helped the GAC to have a better understanding of the different views on the issue. In assessing the different rationales presented so far related to Stress Test 18, the GAC considered: • The need that each and every Advisory Committee ensures that the advice provided is clear and reflects the consensus view of the Committee; • The need that each and every Advisory Committee should preserve its own autonomy in its definition of consensus; • The value the Board attributes to receiving consensus advice; • The recommendation of the BGRI WG, as reiterated by the ATRT2, to set the threshold for the ICANN Board to reject GAC advice to a 2/3 majority voting, consistent with the threshold established for rejection of ccNSO and GNSO PDP recommendations. 6 In view of the above, having considered concerns expressed by various parties, the GAC agreed to further work on the issue of Stress Test 18, and to submit any further input to the CCWG taking into account the timelines of the CCWG. GAC Members will continue to work within the CCWG to finalise the proposal for enhancing ICANN accountability.

​Perhaps I am not very good at reading GAC communiques, but I don't see in there any statement that ​the GAC came to a consensus view in support of the 2/3 majority voting threshold. It only says that the GAC "considered" the 2/3 threshold when "assessing" "rationales" "related to Stress Test 18." What am I missing? Finally, this states that the GAC considers that the new accountability framework "must preserve the current role of governments in ICANN." It seems to me that the simple majority vote does that, without any need for a higher threshold to satisfy that criterion. Greg On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 1:57 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

Hi Steve

I feel that alternative 6 would be very difficult to reconcile with the Dublin GAC consensus as several of us have already expressed.

Becky's proposal is also on the table and seems to address concerns expressed by gnso colleagues, while not changing the 2/3 which is part of the GAC Dublin consensus.

Therefore I feel it is worthwile exploring it further.

regards

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 01.02.2016 um 19:35 schrieb Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>:

If we are going to consider alternatives to Rec 11 on our next call, please keep in mind that last week we discussed another alternative that was published in the Rec 11 1st reading document< https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Final+Report?preview=/5698...

...

.

On page 1 we listed these 2 alternative ways to address Stress Test 18:

5. Confirm or discuss recommendation for 2/3 threshold (11 votes) for Board to reject GAC advice that was approved by GAC general agreement in the absence of any formal objection. The present threshold is majority (9 votes). CCWGshould evaluatewhether requiring 2 more board votes to reject GAC advice is an appropriate threshold, given that GAC would be required to approve such advice by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection.

or

6. Discuss request that GAC advice must be approved by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, under the present threshold for a majority of board to reject GAC advice.

We briefly discussed #6 above, as it was consistent with comments from many in CCWG, and reflected the original recommendation from the Stress Test work party in February-2105.

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 11:52 AM To: Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>>, 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution

Becky,

Could you clarify a couple of things for me? First, this would apply to all GAC advice, correct? Second, if GAC is not included, the thresholds for exercising powers 1, 2, 5 and 7 would have to be adjusted to prevent a unanimity requirement for exercising them, correct?

Thanks,

Brett

From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 10:49 AM To: Phil Buckingham; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; Schaefer, Brett Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; 'Thomas Rickert'; 'CCWG Accountability' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution

Kavouss¹ proposal (Board may reject GAC Advice only with support of 60% of its members) is simple and it is a compromise - essentially midway between a majority and a 2/3rds standard.

My proposal attempts to address some of the structural concerns that arise when you look at Recommendations 1, 10 and 11 together. Specifically, it is intended to address the ³2 bites at the apple² situation when (1) the GAC issues Advice, which is then accepted by the Board - even where a majority (but not 60% or 66%) of the Board opposes that and (2) the community would like to consider challenging the Board¹s implementation as exceeding the scope of ICANN¹s Mission. In that situation, the GAC has indicated that it will participate in the escalation decision regarding invocation a community power, for example through an IRP. I propose that we should maintain the current threshold (e.g., no more than 2 SO/ACs object), but that the GAC¹s vote should not be counted to block use of a community power to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. I would note that Jorge notes that this principle should be applied across the Board. I don¹t agree, as I think that GAC Advice is not comparable to the output of, for example, a PDP process.

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://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>

On 2/1/16, 10:26 AM, "Phil Buckingham" <phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto: phil@dotadvice.co.uk>> wrote:

...

Dear Kavouss,

Thank you for your compromise proposal/ solution. The CCWG really does need to get over this huge hurdle. I am struggling to keep to up. In preparation for the call tomorrow , could you/ Co Chairs summarise your and Becky ' alternative recommendation. The key question to me is which is easier to implement and the simplest to understand. Many thanks, Phil

-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 01 February 2016 13:35 To: Schaefer, Brett Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert; CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution

Dear Brett I think it id more straight forward to take 60% than Becky ,s proposal not because mine is better but more simpler. Regards I appeal to you and your distinguished colleagues as well as Becky to kindly consider 60% with favourable thought Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

...

On 1 Feb 2016, at 13:21, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote:

I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't the arguments against the 2/3 requirement, which is after all 66%, apply just as much to the 60% proposal?

I think Becky's proposal gets much closer to addressing the substance of the concerns raised.

________________________________ Brett Schaefer 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<http://heritage.org><; https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage .org_&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=TnI7iy91U78v r2iGqvQgUvyuD2Gjh7I0sPPGfgh1zlk&e= >

On Jan 31, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>> wrote:

All,

I wanted to pluck this suggestion out of the email swamp.

Kavouss made an alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3 -- the alternative threshold is 60%.

Speaking only for myself, this could be a simple but creative way out of the current situation. It is a literally a middle ground between the current majority threshold and the previously proposed 2/3 threshold:

Votes

Percentage

Result

8/16

50%

No

9/16

56.25%

Yes, by majority

10/16

62.50%

Yes, if by 60%

11/16

68.75%

Yes, if by 2/3

This would require one more vote than the current threshold and one less vote than the 2/3 threshold. Win/win?

Greg

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs Pls kindly confirm that you have received my last alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3. This alternative threshould is 60% There has been many cases considered with that level of threshold Pls confirm its recption and confirm actions to be taken before you go to poll Awaiting for your reply Kavouss

[...]

_______________________________________________ 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

+1 to Jorge´s comments Regards Olga 2016-02-01 18:41 GMT-03:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:

Dear Greg

I guess other GAC colleagues may confirm that the 2/3 were part of a package deal agreed in Dublin by consensus. A package deal which contained other elements different to the 2/3.

I don't feel it is helpful to construe now that the 2/3 were never part of such a consensus, although expressed perhaps in a complex wording.

It doesn't help in achieving consensus, for which many of us have worked very hard - inside our constituencies and across constituencies.

And to compromise means to recognize and value the positions of others as legitimate.

And if Rec 11 is intended to be a compromise solution (as was the text currently in the third draft report) I feel that it cannot be just a 100% win for one constituency.

It should maintain a fair balance between the views expressed by those constituencies.

regards

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 01.02.2016 um 22:29 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>:

Citation to the "GAC Dublin consensus" is quite interesting, when you look at it a bit.

First, assuming there were a GAC Dublin consensus on the 2/3 threshold, that does not bind the CCWG nor is the CCWG required to give that consensus any type of deference, aside from the treatment it would give to a position held by any of the Chartering Organizations. It is true that it would be "difficult to reconcile" a majority vote with a 2/3 vote, but that's true of every position of every organization that is different from the CCWG's position. We are under no special obligation to reconcile the CCWG's outcomes with "GAC Dublin consensus."

Second, in looking for "GAC Dublin consensus" what I found seem to fall far short of that. Specifically, the GAC Dublin Communique says the following (in a section that is not "GAC Advice"):

The GAC recognizes that much progress has been made by the CCWG-Accountability in its ongoing work, and welcomes the CCWG’s achievements to date and supports the efforts to finalise its proposal for enhancing ICANN accountability as required for the IANA stewardship transition.

In assessing the specific accountability recommendations put forth so far by the CCWG Accountability, the GAC considers that whatever the final outcome of this process may be, the new accountability framework to be agreed upon must preserve the current role of governments in ICANN.

The discussions on Stress Test 18 have helped the GAC to have a better understanding of the different views on the issue. In assessing the different rationales presented so far related to Stress Test 18, the GAC considered: • The need that each and every Advisory Committee ensures that the advice provided is clear and reflects the consensus view of the Committee; • The need that each and every Advisory Committee should preserve its own autonomy in its definition of consensus; • The value the Board attributes to receiving consensus advice; • The recommendation of the BGRI WG, as reiterated by the ATRT2, to set the threshold for the ICANN Board to reject GAC advice to a 2/3 majority voting, consistent with the threshold established for rejection of ccNSO and GNSO PDP recommendations. 6 In view of the above, having considered concerns expressed by various parties, the GAC agreed to further work on the issue of Stress Test 18, and to submit any further input to the CCWG taking into account the timelines of the CCWG. GAC Members will continue to work within the CCWG to finalise the proposal for enhancing ICANN accountability.

​Perhaps I am not very good at reading GAC communiques, but I don't see in there any statement that ​the GAC came to a consensus view in support of the 2/3 majority voting threshold. It only says that the GAC "considered" the 2/3 threshold when "assessing" "rationales" "related to Stress Test 18." What am I missing?

Finally, this states that the GAC considers that the new accountability framework "must preserve the current role of governments in ICANN." It seems to me that the simple majority vote does that, without any need for a higher threshold to satisfy that criterion.

Greg

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 1:57 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Hi Steve

I feel that alternative 6 would be very difficult to reconcile with the Dublin GAC consensus as several of us have already expressed.

Becky's proposal is also on the table and seems to address concerns expressed by gnso colleagues, while not changing the 2/3 which is part of the GAC Dublin consensus.

Therefore I feel it is worthwile exploring it further.

regards

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 01.02.2016 um 19:35 schrieb Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org><mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto: sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>>:

If we are going to consider alternatives to Rec 11 on our next call, please keep in mind that last week we discussed another alternative that was published in the Rec 11 1st reading document< https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Final+Report?preview=/5698...

...

.

On page 1 we listed these 2 alternative ways to address Stress Test 18:

5. Confirm or discuss recommendation for 2/3 threshold (11 votes) for Board to reject GAC advice that was approved by GAC general agreement in the absence of any formal objection. The present threshold is majority (9 votes). CCWGshould evaluatewhether requiring 2 more board votes to reject GAC advice is an appropriate threshold, given that GAC would be required to approve such advice by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection.

or

6. Discuss request that GAC advice must be approved by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, under the present threshold for a majority of board to reject GAC advice.

We briefly discussed #6 above, as it was consistent with comments from many in CCWG, and reflected the original recommendation from the Stress Test work party in February-2105.

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>> on behalf of "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 11:52 AM To: Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz

...

<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>>, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk><mailto: phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>>>, 'Kavouss Arasteh' < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto: kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org><mailto: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>>, 'Thomas Rickert' < thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, 'CCWG Accountability' < accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution

Becky,

Could you clarify a couple of things for me? First, this would apply to all GAC advice, correct? Second, if GAC is not included, the thresholds for exercising powers 1, 2, 5 and 7 would have to be adjusted to prevent a unanimity requirement for exercising them, correct?

Thanks,

Brett

From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto: Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 10:49 AM To: Phil Buckingham; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; Schaefer, Brett Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org><mailto: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>; 'Thomas Rickert'; 'CCWG Accountability' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution

Kavouss¹ proposal (Board may reject GAC Advice only with support of 60% of its members) is simple and it is a compromise - essentially midway between a majority and a 2/3rds standard.

My proposal attempts to address some of the structural concerns that arise when you look at Recommendations 1, 10 and 11 together. Specifically, it is intended to address the ³2 bites at the apple² situation when (1) the GAC issues Advice, which is then accepted by the Board - even where a majority (but not 60% or 66%) of the Board opposes that and (2) the community would like to consider challenging the Board¹s implementation as exceeding the scope of ICANN¹s Mission. In that situation, the GAC has indicated that it will participate in the escalation decision regarding invocation a community power, for example through an IRP. I propose that we should maintain the current threshold (e.g., no more than 2 SO/ACs object), but that the GAC¹s vote should not be counted to block use of a community power to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. I would note that Jorge notes that this principle should be applied across the Board. I don¹t agree, as I think that GAC Advice is not comparable to the output of, for example, a PDP process.

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://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>

On 2/1/16, 10:26 AM, "Phil Buckingham" <phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto: phil@dotadvice.co.uk><mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto: phil@dotadvice.co.uk>>> wrote:

...

Dear Kavouss,

Thank you for your compromise proposal/ solution. The CCWG really does need to get over this huge hurdle. I am struggling to keep to up. In preparation for the call tomorrow , could you/ Co Chairs summarise your and Becky ' alternative recommendation. The key question to me is which is easier to implement and the simplest to understand. Many thanks, Phil

-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 01 February 2016 13:35 To: Schaefer, Brett Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org><mailto: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>; Thomas Rickert; CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution

Dear Brett I think it id more straight forward to take 60% than Becky ,s proposal not because mine is better but more simpler. Regards I appeal to you and your distinguished colleagues as well as Becky to kindly consider 60% with favourable thought Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

...

On 1 Feb 2016, at 13:21, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> wrote:

I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't the arguments against the 2/3 requirement, which is after all 66%, apply just as much to the 60% proposal?

I think Becky's proposal gets much closer to addressing the substance of the concerns raised.

________________________________ Brett Schaefer 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<tel:202-608-6097>

heritage.org<http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org><; https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage .org_&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=TnI7iy91U78v r2iGqvQgUvyuD2Gjh7I0sPPGfgh1zlk&e= >

On Jan 31, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>% 3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:3cmailto%3Agregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>> wrote:

All,

I wanted to pluck this suggestion out of the email swamp.

Kavouss made an alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3 -- the alternative threshold is 60%.

Speaking only for myself, this could be a simple but creative way out of the current situation. It is a literally a middle ground between the current majority threshold and the previously proposed 2/3 threshold:

Votes

Percentage

Result

8/16

50%

No

9/16

56.25%

Yes, by majority

10/16

62.50%

Yes, if by 60%

11/16

68.75%

Yes, if by 2/3

This would require one more vote than the current threshold and one less vote than the 2/3 threshold. Win/win?

Greg

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto: kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto: kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>% 3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: 3cmailto%3Akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs Pls kindly confirm that you have received my last alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3. This alternative threshould is 60% There has been many cases considered with that level of threshold Pls confirm its recption and confirm actions to be taken before you go to poll Awaiting for your reply Kavouss

[...]

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

I agree with Jorge, that the 2/3 were part of a package deal agreed in Dublin by consensus within the GAC. Let's start 7 1/2 hours from now to build concensus based on Becky’s very constructive proposal! Best, Finn Sendt fra min iPad

Den 1. feb. 2016 kl. 22.44 skrev "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:

Dear Greg

I guess other GAC colleagues may confirm that the 2/3 were part of a package deal agreed in Dublin by consensus. A package deal which contained other elements different to the 2/3.

I don't feel it is helpful to construe now that the 2/3 were never part of such a consensus, although expressed perhaps in a complex wording.

It doesn't help in achieving consensus, for which many of us have worked very hard - inside our constituencies and across constituencies.

And to compromise means to recognize and value the positions of others as legitimate.

And if Rec 11 is intended to be a compromise solution (as was the text currently in the third draft report) I feel that it cannot be just a 100% win for one constituency.

It should maintain a fair balance between the views expressed by those constituencies.

regards

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 01.02.2016 um 22:29 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>:

Citation to the "GAC Dublin consensus" is quite interesting, when you look at it a bit.

First, assuming there were a GAC Dublin consensus on the 2/3 threshold, that does not bind the CCWG nor is the CCWG required to give that consensus any type of deference, aside from the treatment it would give to a position held by any of the Chartering Organizations. It is true that it would be "difficult to reconcile" a majority vote with a 2/3 vote, but that's true of every position of every organization that is different from the CCWG's position. We are under no special obligation to reconcile the CCWG's outcomes with "GAC Dublin consensus."

Second, in looking for "GAC Dublin consensus" what I found seem to fall far short of that. Specifically, the GAC Dublin Communique says the following (in a section that is not "GAC Advice"):

The GAC recognizes that much progress has been made by the CCWG-Accountability in its ongoing work, and welcomes the CCWG’s achievements to date and supports the efforts to finalise its proposal for enhancing ICANN accountability as required for the IANA stewardship transition.

In assessing the specific accountability recommendations put forth so far by the CCWG Accountability, the GAC considers that whatever the final outcome of this process may be, the new accountability framework to be agreed upon must preserve the current role of governments in ICANN.

The discussions on Stress Test 18 have helped the GAC to have a better understanding of the different views on the issue. In assessing the different rationales presented so far related to Stress Test 18, the GAC considered: • The need that each and every Advisory Committee ensures that the advice provided is clear and reflects the consensus view of the Committee; • The need that each and every Advisory Committee should preserve its own autonomy in its definition of consensus; • The value the Board attributes to receiving consensus advice; • The recommendation of the BGRI WG, as reiterated by the ATRT2, to set the threshold for the ICANN Board to reject GAC advice to a 2/3 majority voting, consistent with the threshold established for rejection of ccNSO and GNSO PDP recommendations. 6 In view of the above, having considered concerns expressed by various parties, the GAC agreed to further work on the issue of Stress Test 18, and to submit any further input to the CCWG taking into account the timelines of the CCWG. GAC Members will continue to work within the CCWG to finalise the proposal for enhancing ICANN accountability.

​Perhaps I am not very good at reading GAC communiques, but I don't see in there any statement that ​the GAC came to a consensus view in support of the 2/3 majority voting threshold. It only says that the GAC "considered" the 2/3 threshold when "assessing" "rationales" "related to Stress Test 18." What am I missing?

Finally, this states that the GAC considers that the new accountability framework "must preserve the current role of governments in ICANN." It seems to me that the simple majority vote does that, without any need for a higher threshold to satisfy that criterion.

Greg

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 1:57 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Hi Steve

I feel that alternative 6 would be very difficult to reconcile with the Dublin GAC consensus as several of us have already expressed.

Becky's proposal is also on the table and seems to address concerns expressed by gnso colleagues, while not changing the 2/3 which is part of the GAC Dublin consensus.

Therefore I feel it is worthwile exploring it further.

regards

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 01.02.2016 um 19:35 schrieb Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org><mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>>:

If we are going to consider alternatives to Rec 11 on our next call, please keep in mind that last week we discussed another alternative that was published in the Rec 11 1st reading document<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Final+Report?preview=/5698...>.

On page 1 we listed these 2 alternative ways to address Stress Test 18:

5. Confirm or discuss recommendation for 2/3 threshold (11 votes) for Board to reject GAC advice that was approved by GAC general agreement in the absence of any formal objection. The present threshold is majority (9 votes). CCWGshould evaluatewhether requiring 2 more board votes to reject GAC advice is an appropriate threshold, given that GAC would be required to approve such advice by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection.

or

6. Discuss request that GAC advice must be approved by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, under the present threshold for a majority of board to reject GAC advice.

We briefly discussed #6 above, as it was consistent with comments from many in CCWG, and reflected the original recommendation from the Stress Test work party in February-2105.

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>> on behalf of "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 11:52 AM To: Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>>, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk><mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>>>, 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org><mailto:acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution

Becky,

Could you clarify a couple of things for me? First, this would apply to all GAC advice, correct? Second, if GAC is not included, the thresholds for exercising powers 1, 2, 5 and 7 would have to be adjusted to prevent a unanimity requirement for exercising them, correct?

Thanks,

Brett

From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 10:49 AM To: Phil Buckingham; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; Schaefer, Brett Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org><mailto:acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>; 'Thomas Rickert'; 'CCWG Accountability' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution

Kavouss¹ proposal (Board may reject GAC Advice only with support of 60% of its members) is simple and it is a compromise - essentially midway between a majority and a 2/3rds standard.

My proposal attempts to address some of the structural concerns that arise when you look at Recommendations 1, 10 and 11 together. Specifically, it is intended to address the ³2 bites at the apple² situation when (1) the GAC issues Advice, which is then accepted by the Board - even where a majority (but not 60% or 66%) of the Board opposes that and (2) the community would like to consider challenging the Board¹s implementation as exceeding the scope of ICANN¹s Mission. In that situation, the GAC has indicated that it will participate in the escalation decision regarding invocation a community power, for example through an IRP. I propose that we should maintain the current threshold (e.g., no more than 2 SO/ACs object), but that the GAC¹s vote should not be counted to block use of a community power to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. I would note that Jorge notes that this principle should be applied across the Board. I don¹t agree, as I think that GAC Advice is not comparable to the output of, for example, a PDP process.

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://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>

...

On 2/1/16, 10:26 AM, "Phil Buckingham" <phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk><mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>>> wrote:

Dear Kavouss,

Thank you for your compromise proposal/ solution. The CCWG really does need to get over this huge hurdle. I am struggling to keep to up. In preparation for the call tomorrow , could you/ Co Chairs summarise your and Becky ' alternative recommendation. The key question to me is which is easier to implement and the simplest to understand. Many thanks, Phil

-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 01 February 2016 13:35 To: Schaefer, Brett Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org><mailto:acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>; Thomas Rickert; CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution

Dear Brett I think it id more straight forward to take 60% than Becky ,s proposal not because mine is better but more simpler. Regards I appeal to you and your distinguished colleagues as well as Becky to kindly consider 60% with favourable thought Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

...

...

On 1 Feb 2016, at 13:21, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> wrote:

I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't the arguments against the 2/3 requirement, which is after all 66%, apply just as much to the 60% proposal?

I think Becky's proposal gets much closer to addressing the substance of the concerns raised.

________________________________ Brett Schaefer 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<tel:202-608-6097>

heritage.org<http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage .org_&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=TnI7iy91U78v r2iGqvQgUvyuD2Gjh7I0sPPGfgh1zlk&e= >

...

On Jan 31, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:3cmailto%3Agregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>> wrote:

All,

I wanted to pluck this suggestion out of the email swamp.

Kavouss made an alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3 -- the alternative threshold is 60%.

Speaking only for myself, this could be a simple but creative way out of the current situation. It is a literally a middle ground between the current majority threshold and the previously proposed 2/3 threshold:

Votes

Percentage

Result

8/16

50%

No

9/16

56.25%

Yes, by majority

10/16

62.50%

Yes, if by 60%

11/16

68.75%

Yes, if by 2/3

This would require one more vote than the current threshold and one less vote than the 2/3 threshold. Win/win?

Greg

...

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:3cmailto%3Akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs Pls kindly confirm that you have received my last alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3. This alternative threshould is 60% There has been many cases considered with that level of threshold Pls confirm its recption and confirm actions to be taken before you go to poll Awaiting for your reply Kavouss

[...]

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

In Dublin? Of the GAC for sure - as Finn has just confirmed from his side. Later on -as you know- the Dublin GAC consensus feeded in into very hard conversations in the CCWG, where the compromise on Rec 11 was found, where all parties made concessions which left some unhappy on both sides. And now -for the last two weeks (?) or so- we are trying to address the concerns expressed by some in the gnso on rec 11, and finding constructive solutions, e.g. adding clarifications on the Board obligation v-a-v GAC advice, rationale for such advice, any board decision being subject to IRP even if based on such advice... And hopefully tomorrow we will find a final decision, which we all can live with... Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 01.02.2016 um 23:39 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>: Jorge, Now I'm more confused. Are you referring to a consensus within the GAC in Dublin or a consensus in the CCWG in Dublin? I'm trying to find out where this consensus is recorded or expressed and whose consensus this is. I'm not trying to "construe" anything. Greg On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 4:41 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Greg I guess other GAC colleagues may confirm that the 2/3 were part of a package deal agreed in Dublin by consensus. A package deal which contained other elements different to the 2/3. I don't feel it is helpful to construe now that the 2/3 were never part of such a consensus, although expressed perhaps in a complex wording. It doesn't help in achieving consensus, for which many of us have worked very hard - inside our constituencies and across constituencies. And to compromise means to recognize and value the positions of others as legitimate. And if Rec 11 is intended to be a compromise solution (as was the text currently in the third draft report) I feel that it cannot be just a 100% win for one constituency. It should maintain a fair balance between the views expressed by those constituencies. regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 01.02.2016 um 22:29 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>: Citation to the "GAC Dublin consensus" is quite interesting, when you look at it a bit. First, assuming there were a GAC Dublin consensus on the 2/3 threshold, that does not bind the CCWG nor is the CCWG required to give that consensus any type of deference, aside from the treatment it would give to a position held by any of the Chartering Organizations. It is true that it would be "difficult to reconcile" a majority vote with a 2/3 vote, but that's true of every position of every organization that is different from the CCWG's position. We are under no special obligation to reconcile the CCWG's outcomes with "GAC Dublin consensus." Second, in looking for "GAC Dublin consensus" what I found seem to fall far short of that. Specifically, the GAC Dublin Communique says the following (in a section that is not "GAC Advice"): The GAC recognizes that much progress has been made by the CCWG-Accountability in its ongoing work, and welcomes the CCWG’s achievements to date and supports the efforts to finalise its proposal for enhancing ICANN accountability as required for the IANA stewardship transition. In assessing the specific accountability recommendations put forth so far by the CCWG Accountability, the GAC considers that whatever the final outcome of this process may be, the new accountability framework to be agreed upon must preserve the current role of governments in ICANN. The discussions on Stress Test 18 have helped the GAC to have a better understanding of the different views on the issue. In assessing the different rationales presented so far related to Stress Test 18, the GAC considered: • The need that each and every Advisory Committee ensures that the advice provided is clear and reflects the consensus view of the Committee; • The need that each and every Advisory Committee should preserve its own autonomy in its definition of consensus; • The value the Board attributes to receiving consensus advice; • The recommendation of the BGRI WG, as reiterated by the ATRT2, to set the threshold for the ICANN Board to reject GAC advice to a 2/3 majority voting, consistent with the threshold established for rejection of ccNSO and GNSO PDP recommendations. 6 In view of the above, having considered concerns expressed by various parties, the GAC agreed to further work on the issue of Stress Test 18, and to submit any further input to the CCWG taking into account the timelines of the CCWG. GAC Members will continue to work within the CCWG to finalise the proposal for enhancing ICANN accountability. ​Perhaps I am not very good at reading GAC communiques, but I don't see in there any statement that ​the GAC came to a consensus view in support of the 2/3 majority voting threshold. It only says that the GAC "considered" the 2/3 threshold when "assessing" "rationales" "related to Stress Test 18." What am I missing? Finally, this states that the GAC considers that the new accountability framework "must preserve the current role of governments in ICANN." It seems to me that the simple majority vote does that, without any need for a higher threshold to satisfy that criterion. Greg On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 1:57 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Hi Steve I feel that alternative 6 would be very difficult to reconcile with the Dublin GAC consensus as several of us have already expressed. Becky's proposal is also on the table and seems to address concerns expressed by gnso colleagues, while not changing the 2/3 which is part of the GAC Dublin consensus. Therefore I feel it is worthwile exploring it further. regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 01.02.2016 um 19:35 schrieb Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org><mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>><mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org><mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>>>: If we are going to consider alternatives to Rec 11 on our next call, please keep in mind that last week we discussed another alternative that was published in the Rec 11 1st reading document<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Final+Report?preview=/5698...>. On page 1 we listed these 2 alternative ways to address Stress Test 18: 5. Confirm or discuss recommendation for 2/3 threshold (11 votes) for Board to reject GAC advice that was approved by GAC general agreement in the absence of any formal objection. The present threshold is majority (9 votes). CCWGshould evaluatewhether requiring 2 more board votes to reject GAC advice is an appropriate threshold, given that GAC would be required to approve such advice by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection. or 6. Discuss request that GAC advice must be approved by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, under the present threshold for a majority of board to reject GAC advice. We briefly discussed #6 above, as it was consistent with comments from many in CCWG, and reflected the original recommendation from the Stress Test work party in February-2105. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>>> on behalf of "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>>> Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 11:52 AM To: Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>>>, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk><mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>><mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk><mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>>>>, 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org><mailto:acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>><mailto:acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org><mailto:acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>>, 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution Becky, Could you clarify a couple of things for me? First, this would apply to all GAC advice, correct? Second, if GAC is not included, the thresholds for exercising powers 1, 2, 5 and 7 would have to be adjusted to prevent a unanimity requirement for exercising them, correct? Thanks, Brett From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>] Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 10:49 AM To: Phil Buckingham; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; Schaefer, Brett Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org><mailto:acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>><mailto:acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org><mailto:acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>>; 'Thomas Rickert'; 'CCWG Accountability' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution Kavouss¹ proposal (Board may reject GAC Advice only with support of 60% of its members) is simple and it is a compromise - essentially midway between a majority and a 2/3rds standard. My proposal attempts to address some of the structural concerns that arise when you look at Recommendations 1, 10 and 11 together. Specifically, it is intended to address the ³2 bites at the apple² situation when (1) the GAC issues Advice, which is then accepted by the Board - even where a majority (but not 60% or 66%) of the Board opposes that and (2) the community would like to consider challenging the Board¹s implementation as exceeding the scope of ICANN¹s Mission. In that situation, the GAC has indicated that it will participate in the escalation decision regarding invocation a community power, for example through an IRP. I propose that we should maintain the current threshold (e.g., no more than 2 SO/ACs object), but that the GAC¹s vote should not be counted to block use of a community power to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. I would note that Jorge notes that this principle should be applied across the Board. I don¹t agree, as I think that GAC Advice is not comparable to the output of, for example, a PDP process. 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><tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367><tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz> On 2/1/16, 10:26 AM, "Phil Buckingham" <phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk><mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>><mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk><mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>>>> wrote:

Dear Kavouss,

Thank you for your compromise proposal/ solution. The CCWG really does need to get over this huge hurdle. I am struggling to keep to up. In preparation for the call tomorrow , could you/ Co Chairs summarise your and Becky ' alternative recommendation. The key question to me is which is easier to implement and the simplest to understand. Many thanks, Phil

-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 01 February 2016 13:35 To: Schaefer, Brett Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org><mailto:acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>><mailto:acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org><mailto:acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>>; Thomas Rickert; CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution

Dear Brett I think it id more straight forward to take 60% than Becky ,s proposal not because mine is better but more simpler. Regards I appeal to you and your distinguished colleagues as well as Becky to kindly consider 60% with favourable thought Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

...

On 1 Feb 2016, at 13:21, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>>> wrote:

I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't the arguments against the 2/3 requirement, which is after all 66%, apply just as much to the 60% proposal?

I think Becky's proposal gets much closer to addressing the substance of the concerns raised.

________________________________ Brett Schaefer 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<tel:202-608-6097><tel:202-608-6097<tel:202-608-6097>>

heritage.org<http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage .org_&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=TnI7iy91U78v r2iGqvQgUvyuD2Gjh7I0sPPGfgh1zlk&e= >

On Jan 31, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:3cmailto%3Agregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:3cmailto%3Agregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:3cmailto%253Agregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>> wrote:

All,

I wanted to pluck this suggestion out of the email swamp.

Kavouss made an alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3 -- the alternative threshold is 60%.

Speaking only for myself, this could be a simple but creative way out of the current situation. It is a literally a middle ground between the current majority threshold and the previously proposed 2/3 threshold:

Votes

Percentage

Result

8/16

50%

No

9/16

56.25%

Yes, by majority

10/16

62.50%

Yes, if by 60%

11/16

68.75%

Yes, if by 2/3

This would require one more vote than the current threshold and one less vote than the 2/3 threshold. Win/win?

Greg

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:3cmailto%3Akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:3cmailto%3Akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:3cmailto%253Akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs Pls kindly confirm that you have received my last alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3. This alternative threshould is 60% There has been many cases considered with that level of threshold Pls confirm its recption and confirm actions to be taken before you go to poll Awaiting for your reply Kavouss

[...]

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

Let's just poll on the 2/3 then this morning... el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4

On 2 Feb 2016, at 02:00, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

Hi,

...

On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 09:41:07PM +0000, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:

I guess other GAC colleagues may confirm that the 2/3 were part of a package deal agreed in Dublin by consensus. A package deal which contained other elements different to the 2/3.

Do you know of somewhere this agreement was communicated? I do not recall an agreement in the CCWG about such a package; what I recall is a lot of discussion about the idea, and I'm unable to find a consensus determination to this effect in the CCWG materials. Similarly, it doesn't seem to be (as Greg outlined and as I noticed the other day) in the GAC communiqué from Dublin.

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

@Brett +1 Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg On 1 Feb 2016, at 4:21, Schaefer, Brett wrote:

I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't the arguments against the 2/3 requirement, which is after all 66%, apply just as much to the 60% proposal?

I think Becky's proposal gets much closer to addressing the substance of the concerns raised.

________________________________ Brett Schaefer 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<http://heritage.org/>

On Jan 31, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:

All,

I wanted to pluck this suggestion out of the email swamp.

Kavouss made an alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3 -- the alternative threshold is 60%.

Speaking only for myself, this could be a simple but creative way out of the current situation. It is a literally a middle ground between the current majority threshold and the previously proposed 2/3 threshold:

Votes

Percentage

Result

8/16

50%

No

9/16

56.25%

Yes, by majority

10/16

62.50%

Yes, if by 60%

11/16

68.75%

Yes, if by 2/3

This would require one more vote than the current threshold and one less vote than the 2/3 threshold. Win/win?

Greg

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs Pls kindly confirm that you have received my last alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3. This alternative threshould is 60% There has been many cases considered with that level of threshold Pls confirm its recption and confirm actions to be taken before you go to poll Awaiting for your reply Kavouss

[...]

_______________________________________________ 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://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<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

Dear Brett

Dear Mathieu No There are many support for this fairly simple approach Becky, suggestion , while highly appreciated, is complex and could involve extensive study from legal, operational and procedural view point . It may also be considered outside our mandate since it nay be considered indirectly or ,,?as some sort of restructuring.( see views expressed in its regard) Why not take this quite simple and straightforward approach Regards Kavousd

Perhaps a combination of Becky's proposal and Kavouss' proposal? Let's get this done. Keith -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Schaefer, Brett Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 7:21 AM To: Greg Shatan Cc: acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert; CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't the arguments against the 2/3 requirement, which is after all 66%, apply just as much to the 60% proposal? I think Becky's proposal gets much closer to addressing the substance of the concerns raised. ________________________________ Brett Schaefer 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<http://heritage.org/> On Jan 31, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, I wanted to pluck this suggestion out of the email swamp. Kavouss made an alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3 -- the alternative threshold is 60%. Speaking only for myself, this could be a simple but creative way out of the current situation. It is a literally a middle ground between the current majority threshold and the previously proposed 2/3 threshold: Votes Percentage Result 8/16 50% No 9/16 56.25% Yes, by majority 10/16 62.50% Yes, if by 60% 11/16 68.75% Yes, if by 2/3 This would require one more vote than the current threshold and one less vote than the 2/3 threshold. Win/win? Greg On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs Pls kindly confirm that you have received my last alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3. This alternative threshould is 60% There has been many cases considered with that level of threshold Pls confirm its recption and confirm actions to be taken before you go to poll Awaiting for your reply Kavouss [...] _______________________________________________ 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://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<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