We need to wait until the end of tomorrow's discussion. What is the reasons for hurry. We have always pushed before really finalizing the matter. Regards Kavouss 2016-02-22 7:58 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:

Disagree. We should work from the most updated version of the documents. There's no reason to withhold this version from the WG.

Best regards,

Greg

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Dear Hilarry Thanks for the doc. It is not *appropriate* that these docs. be distributed before we finalize the pending issue , mainly the threshold to remove the entire Board and any other actions which will arise from 23 Feb. Call. Regards Kavouss

2016-02-22 4:14 GMT+01:00 Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org>:

...

Hello all,

As requested by the co-Chairs, staff has made available the updated Core Proposal, Annexes and Appendices as they were prepared after comments received from the 17 February posting in anticipation of a 19 February distribution of the proposal to the Chartering Organizations. They can be found on the wiki here (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).

These documents are *not* final, however have been made available for preliminary review. Any discussions on the list from 19 February to now are not reflected.

Thanks, Hillary

-- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org

_______________________________________________ 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

Dear Kavouss, I understand you are criticisizing that the document in its current state has been made available to the CCWG. May I kindly ask you not to direct your criticism at staff, but at us co-chairs. We have asked staff to make the document available to the group and staff has just followed that request. Also, please note that the document has not been officially publicised, but we wanted to give the group as much time as possible to review the report. Thank you for your understanding. Kind regards, Thomas --- rickert.net

Am 22.02.2016 um 07:23 schrieb Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

Dear Hilarry Thanks for the doc. It is not appropriate that these docs. be distributed before we finalize the pending issue , mainly the threshold to remove the entire Board and any other actions which will arise from 23 Feb. Call. Regards Kavouss

2016-02-22 4:14 GMT+01:00 Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org>:

...

Hello all,

As requested by the co-Chairs, staff has made available the updated Core Proposal, Annexes and Appendices as they were prepared after comments received from the 17 February posting in anticipation of a 19 February distribution of the proposal to the Chartering Organizations. They can be found on the wiki here (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).

These documents are not final, however have been made available for preliminary review. Any discussions on the list from 19 February to now are not reflected.

Thanks, Hillary

-- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org

_______________________________________________ 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

Dear Kavouss, I've said a number of times I don't mind the outcome either way. Because of that I don't hear, or make, strong arguments in favour or against any option. Because of that, I tend to favour not changing the report if we don't have to. I honestly believe that the circumstances in which this power would be used and this lower threshold available are so unlikely, that it would only ever happen in a state of shocking conflict. And since board members are usually quite rational, I also believe that if the Board allowed things to get that bad, they would probably be thinking of resigning anyway. Or to put it another way - I don't think we have a problem here that needs fixing by changing the report. Jordan On Monday, 22 February 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Jordan Re your last message relating to the removal if the Board in case of no IRP, i am not still convinced by yr argument . Why not ,exceptionally require 4SO/AC for that case. Such exception, could help to 1) satisfy Board, s concerns and 2) could help other participants be more comfortable that in the absence of IRP the 4 SO/AC support will prevail and thus be more comfortable to accept the Carve-Out Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone

On 22 Feb 2016, at 10:41, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');>> wrote:

Thanks Hillary for this.

All, in prep for our call on the 23rd, I thought I'd extract and post the exact wording from Annex 2 about the carve out thresholds that seems to be at the centre of the discussion. Here they are:

Quote from Annex 2 - para 72 and bullet:

- - - The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional Participant because the Community Power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC consensus advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects,with the following exception:

Where the power to be exercised is recalling the entire Board for implementing GAC advice, the reduced threshold would apply only either (1) after an IRP has found that, in implementing GAC advice, the Board acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, or (2) if the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question. If the Empowered Community has brought such an IRP and does not prevail, the Empowered Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire the Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. It may, however, exercise that power based on other grounds. - - -

I read this as establishing a threshold of three SOs/ACs in support to use the Board recall power in only two situations:

1) if IRP held that Board acted inconsistent with bylaws 2) if IRP is not available

Otherwise the threshold would remain at four SOs/ACs in support.

I cannot think of many circumstances where the IRP is not available, since almost any action of the Board could be tested against the bylaws through an IRP.

If an IRP finds in favour of the Board, the threshold would remain at four SOs/ACs in support. Yes, it breaches the principle of unanimity being never required, but it does so after a thorough investigation by an IRP process. (If there is no such investigation, i.e. no IRP available, then the lower threshold applies.)

Seems fine to me.

Speak with you all in ~18hours...

Jordan

On 22 February 2016 at 16:14, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','hillary.jett@icann.org');>> wrote:

...

Hello all,

As requested by the co-Chairs, staff has made available the updated Core Proposal, Annexes and Appendices as they were prepared after comments received from the 17 February posting in anticipation of a 19 February distribution of the proposal to the Chartering Organizations. They can be found on the wiki here (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).

These documents are *not* final, however have been made available for preliminary review. Any discussions on the list from 19 February to now are not reflected.

Thanks, Hillary

-- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','hillary.jett@icann.org');>

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- Jordan Carter

Chief Executive *InternetNZ - your voice for the Open Internet*

+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

Dear Mark and Jordan If you would have asked me 72 hours ago I would have said that this was a discussion about a rare edge case. Two things make me think otherwise now First, is the fact that the Board has seen fit to make this a disruptive issue in the midst of what (as Ed Morris says) was intended as a 48 hour review period for typos and the like. If the Board thinks it is important enough to address substantively then perhaps it is – though I still don’t see why. Second, and more importantly, this is really a procedural test of the community. If it cannot take, defend, and enforce a decision (whether an edge case or more significant) against the Board’s abuse of the process then it leaves me with little confidence that =any = of the accountability measures we have identified are going to be effective. It takes fortitude to call a hierarchy to account. If we don’t have it now, we are unlikely ever to have it. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: Mark Carvell [mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 5:54 AM To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Cc: ACCT-STAFF <acct-staff@icann.org>; CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Updated Proposal Documents Available for Review Dear Jordan I agree: we may well be dedicating a lot of crucial time at the risk of over-engineering things here. I've said at various times in the CCWG process that it is important to recognise what community empowerment means in terms of facilitating the resolution of problems and disputes at the earliest possible stage - rather than emphasising the need to anticipate confrontation that requires decisional votes. This is one of the reasons why I also emphasise how a formal advisory role for governments throughout the escalation process can actively contribute to the community's resolution of such problems. We should also not forget that the GAC and the GNSO are transitioning to a closer working relationship which also serves to obviate the risk of fundamental disputes revolving around GAC advice to the Board being escalated to "spill level" (I am referring to the current work of the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group chaired by Jonathan Robinson and Manal Ismail) changes contribute to realising the vision of enhanced, consensus-based ICANN multi-stakeholder processes that both ATRT reviews helped to set out. Kind regards ​Mark​ Mark Carvell ​United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN ​ Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk <mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk> tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062 On 22 February 2016 at 10:18, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> > wrote: Dear Kavouss, I've said a number of times I don't mind the outcome either way. Because of that I don't hear, or make, strong arguments in favour or against any option. Because of that, I tend to favour not changing the report if we don't have to. I honestly believe that the circumstances in which this power would be used and this lower threshold available are so unlikely, that it would only ever happen in a state of shocking conflict. And since board members are usually quite rational, I also believe that if the Board allowed things to get that bad, they would probably be thinking of resigning anyway. Or to put it another way - I don't think we have a problem here that needs fixing by changing the report. Jordan On Monday, 22 February 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear Jordan Re your last message relating to the removal if the Board in case of no IRP, i am not still convinced by yr argument . Why not ,exceptionally require 4SO/AC for that case. Such exception, could help to 1) satisfy Board, s concerns and 2) could help other participants be more comfortable that in the absence of IRP the 4 SO/AC support will prevail and thus be more comfortable to accept the Carve-Out Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 22 Feb 2016, at 10:41, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> > wrote: Thanks Hillary for this. All, in prep for our call on the 23rd, I thought I'd extract and post the exact wording from Annex 2 about the carve out thresholds that seems to be at the centre of the discussion. Here they are: Quote from Annex 2 - para 72 and bullet: - - - The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional Participant because the Community Power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC consensus advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects,with the following exception: Where the power to be exercised is recalling the entire Board for implementing GAC advice, the reduced threshold would apply only either (1) after an IRP has found that, in implementing GAC advice, the Board acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, or (2) if the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question. If the Empowered Community has brought such an IRP and does not prevail, the Empowered Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire the Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. It may, however, exercise that power based on other grounds. - - - I read this as establishing a threshold of three SOs/ACs in support to use the Board recall power in only two situations: 1) if IRP held that Board acted inconsistent with bylaws 2) if IRP is not available Otherwise the threshold would remain at four SOs/ACs in support. I cannot think of many circumstances where the IRP is not available, since almost any action of the Board could be tested against the bylaws through an IRP. If an IRP finds in favour of the Board, the threshold would remain at four SOs/ACs in support. Yes, it breaches the principle of unanimity being never required, but it does so after a thorough investigation by an IRP process. (If there is no such investigation, i.e. no IRP available, then the lower threshold applies.) Seems fine to me. Speak with you all in ~18hours... Jordan On 22 February 2016 at 16:14, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org> > wrote: Hello all, As requested by the co-Chairs, staff has made available the updated Core Proposal, Annexes and Appendices as they were prepared after comments received from the 17 February posting in anticipation of a 19 February distribution of the proposal to the Chartering Organizations. They can be found on the wiki here (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). These documents are not final, however have been made available for preliminary review. Any discussions on the list from 19 February to now are not reflected. Thanks, Hillary -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20674-3403> Email: hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org> _______________________________________________ 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 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ - your voice for the Open Internet +64-4-495-2118 <tel:%2B64-4-495-2118> (office) | +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz> _______________________________________________ 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 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity _______________________________________________ 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

This reminds me. In Buenos Aries, Larry Strickling observed, “As I listen to the discussions of membership models, separability, budget reviews and the like, I am struck by the fact that this community goes through cycle after cycle of putting its own people on the board and then stops trusting them to act in the interest of the multistakeholder model. I am puzzled by the fact that the discussion to date has not asked why it is that community leaders go from prophet to pariah simply by joining the ICANN board. And I am worried that until the community solves this issue, all the other accountability tools will fall short of delivering the outcomes the community wants.” As I remember, this aside got a lot of applause from the Board. Unfortunately, the actions of the Board over the past week provide a strong illustration as to why this distrust exists and perseveres. We may not be able resolve the trust issue as Larry recommended we do, but we can make sure that the Board is accountable. We should not take steps to weaken the checks on the Board in the current proposal. ________________________________ 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: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 3:48 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig Cc: 'CCWG-Accountability' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Updated Proposal Documents Available for Review Yes, Paul This is the most disturbing thing about the latest board intervention. Clearly, the board is still laboring under the mentality of the pre-reform ICANN, in which the board had completely unchecked power (other than by the NTIA exercising a nuclear option) to dictate outcomes regardless of the bottom up process. The board apparently has learned nothing about why these accountability reforms were necessary and has not internalized the attitudinal changes required to insstitutionalize a more accountable and balanced environment. If the board’s attitude about this has not changed, and they are still assuming that _in this process_ they can unilaterally dictate change, then it is not clear whether the reforms will work. It looks like the board forces us to constantly battle them in a highly conflict-prone process – and then wonders why people don’t trust them. Second, and more importantly, this is really a procedural test of the community. If it cannot take, defend, and enforce a decision (whether an edge case or more significant) against the Board’s abuse of the process then it leaves me with little confidence that =any = of the accountability measures we have identified are going to be effective. It takes fortitude to call a hierarchy to account. If we don’t have it now, we are unlikely ever to have it. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>

If I could make a small request to the Chairs, I think it would be helpful to have the relevant text under discussion in the center Adobe window tonight so that everyone does not need to page through PDF is a separate window. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 4:41 AM To: Hillary Jett Cc: ACCT-STAFF; CCWG-Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Updated Proposal Documents Available for Review Thanks Hillary for this. All, in prep for our call on the 23rd, I thought I'd extract and post the exact wording from Annex 2 about the carve out thresholds that seems to be at the centre of the discussion. Here they are: Quote from Annex 2 - para 72 and bullet: - - - The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional Participant because the Community Power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC consensus advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects,with the following exception: Where the power to be exercised is recalling the entire Board for implementing GAC advice, the reduced threshold would apply only either (1) after an IRP has found that, in implementing GAC advice, the Board acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, or (2) if the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question. If the Empowered Community has brought such an IRP and does not prevail, the Empowered Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire the Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. It may, however, exercise that power based on other grounds. - - - I read this as establishing a threshold of three SOs/ACs in support to use the Board recall power in only two situations: 1) if IRP held that Board acted inconsistent with bylaws 2) if IRP is not available Otherwise the threshold would remain at four SOs/ACs in support. I cannot think of many circumstances where the IRP is not available, since almost any action of the Board could be tested against the bylaws through an IRP. If an IRP finds in favour of the Board, the threshold would remain at four SOs/ACs in support. Yes, it breaches the principle of unanimity being never required, but it does so after a thorough investigation by an IRP process. (If there is no such investigation, i.e. no IRP available, then the lower threshold applies.) Seems fine to me. Speak with you all in ~18hours... Jordan On 22 February 2016 at 16:14, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org<mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>> wrote: Hello all, As requested by the co-Chairs, staff has made available the updated Core Proposal, Annexes and Appendices as they were prepared after comments received from the 17 February posting in anticipation of a 19 February distribution of the proposal to the Chartering Organizations. They can be found on the wiki here (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw<https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw>). These documents are not final, however have been made available for preliminary review. Any discussions on the list from 19 February to now are not reflected. Thanks, Hillary -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20674-3403> Email: hillary.jett@icann.org<mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org> ________________________________ 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/> _______________________________________________ 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> -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ - your voice for the Open Internet +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz<http://www.internetnz.nz>

The relevant language in the draft of the 19th seems awkward at best. It may also be useful to have a table of simple sentences something like below, to clearly capture what people are in support of (or not). A. The GAC MAY NOT participate as a decision-maker in community deliberations involving a challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC consensus advice. B. If an IRP has found that in implementing GAC advice the Board acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws the threshold is set at THREE in support and no more than one objects to recall the entire the Board. C. If an IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question the threshold is set at THREE in support and no more than one objects to recall the entire the Board. D. If an IRP has found that in implementing GAC advice the Board HAS NOT acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, the Empowered Community may NOT exercise its power to recall the entire the Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. E. If an IRP has found that in implementing GAC advice the Board HAS NOT acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, the Empowered Community MAY exercise its power to recall the entire the Board based on other grounds and the threshold is set at FOUR in support and no more than one objects. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 4:18 PM To: Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> Cc: ACCT-STAFF <acct-staff@icann.org>; CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Updated Proposal Documents Available for Review Brett, we will have the text available and let me also remind you of my response to Larry. I said you do not have to join the Board to not be trusted. Becoming a CCWG co-chair is sufficient for that. Thought I should share this with you. Let's all try to keep smiling in these challenging days. Thomas --- rickert.net<http://rickert.net> Am 22.02.2016 um 22:09 schrieb Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>: If I could make a small request to the Chairs, I think it would be helpful to have the relevant text under discussion in the center Adobe window tonight so that everyone does not need to page through PDF is a separate window. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 4:41 AM To: Hillary Jett Cc: ACCT-STAFF; CCWG-Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Updated Proposal Documents Available for Review Thanks Hillary for this. All, in prep for our call on the 23rd, I thought I'd extract and post the exact wording from Annex 2 about the carve out thresholds that seems to be at the centre of the discussion. Here they are: Quote from Annex 2 - para 72 and bullet: - - - The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional Participant because the Community Power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC consensus advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects,with the following exception: Where the power to be exercised is recalling the entire Board for implementing GAC advice, the reduced threshold would apply only either (1) after an IRP has found that, in implementing GAC advice, the Board acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, or (2) if the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question. If the Empowered Community has brought such an IRP and does not prevail, the Empowered Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire the Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. It may, however, exercise that power based on other grounds. - - - I read this as establishing a threshold of three SOs/ACs in support to use the Board recall power in only two situations: 1) if IRP held that Board acted inconsistent with bylaws 2) if IRP is not available Otherwise the threshold would remain at four SOs/ACs in support. I cannot think of many circumstances where the IRP is not available, since almost any action of the Board could be tested against the bylaws through an IRP. If an IRP finds in favour of the Board, the threshold would remain at four SOs/ACs in support. Yes, it breaches the principle of unanimity being never required, but it does so after a thorough investigation by an IRP process. (If there is no such investigation, i.e. no IRP available, then the lower threshold applies.) Seems fine to me. Speak with you all in ~18hours... Jordan On 22 February 2016 at 16:14, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org<mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>> wrote: Hello all, As requested by the co-Chairs, staff has made available the updated Core Proposal, Annexes and Appendices as they were prepared after comments received from the 17 February posting in anticipation of a 19 February distribution of the proposal to the Chartering Organizations. They can be found on the wiki here (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). These documents are not final, however have been made available for preliminary review. Any discussions on the list from 19 February to now are not reflected. Thanks, Hillary -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20674-3403> Email: hillary.jett@icann.org<mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org> ________________________________ 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/> _______________________________________________ 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 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ - your voice for the Open Internet +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz<http://www.internetnz.nz> _______________________________________________ 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

Agree, though point E should be 3, not 4, if it is to reflect the status quo. The Board is proposing changing 3 to 4 in points C and E, I believe. ________________________________ 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 22, 2016, at 6:01 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: Very good summary, as far as I am concerned. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chartier, Mike S Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 5:15 PM To: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>; CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: ACCT-STAFF <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Updated Proposal Documents Available for Review The relevant language in the draft of the 19th seems awkward at best. It may also be useful to have a table of simple sentences something like below, to clearly capture what people are in support of (or not). A. The GAC MAY NOT participate as a decision-maker in community deliberations involving a challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC consensus advice. B. If an IRP has found that in implementing GAC advice the Board acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws the threshold is set at THREE in support and no more than one objects to recall the entire the Board. C. If an IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question the threshold is set at THREE in support and no more than one objects to recall the entire the Board. D. If an IRP has found that in implementing GAC advice the Board HAS NOT acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, the Empowered Community may NOT exercise its power to recall the entire the Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. E. If an IRP has found that in implementing GAC advice the Board HAS NOT acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, the Empowered Community MAY exercise its power to recall the entire the Board based on other grounds and the threshold is set at FOUR in support and no more than one objects. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 4:18 PM To: Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Cc: ACCT-STAFF <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>; CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Updated Proposal Documents Available for Review Brett, we will have the text available and let me also remind you of my response to Larry. I said you do not have to join the Board to not be trusted. Becoming a CCWG co-chair is sufficient for that. Thought I should share this with you. Let's all try to keep smiling in these challenging days. Thomas --- rickert.net<http://rickert.net> Am 22.02.2016 um 22:09 schrieb Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>: If I could make a small request to the Chairs, I think it would be helpful to have the relevant text under discussion in the center Adobe window tonight so that everyone does not need to page through PDF is a separate window. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 4:41 AM To: Hillary Jett Cc: ACCT-STAFF; CCWG-Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Updated Proposal Documents Available for Review Thanks Hillary for this. All, in prep for our call on the 23rd, I thought I'd extract and post the exact wording from Annex 2 about the carve out thresholds that seems to be at the centre of the discussion. Here they are: Quote from Annex 2 - para 72 and bullet: - - - The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional Participant because the Community Power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC consensus advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects,with the following exception: Where the power to be exercised is recalling the entire Board for implementing GAC advice, the reduced threshold would apply only either (1) after an IRP has found that, in implementing GAC advice, the Board acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, or (2) if the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question. If the Empowered Community has brought such an IRP and does not prevail, the Empowered Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire the Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. It may, however, exercise that power based on other grounds. - - - I read this as establishing a threshold of three SOs/ACs in support to use the Board recall power in only two situations: 1) if IRP held that Board acted inconsistent with bylaws 2) if IRP is not available Otherwise the threshold would remain at four SOs/ACs in support. I cannot think of many circumstances where the IRP is not available, since almost any action of the Board could be tested against the bylaws through an IRP. If an IRP finds in favour of the Board, the threshold would remain at four SOs/ACs in support. Yes, it breaches the principle of unanimity being never required, but it does so after a thorough investigation by an IRP process. (If there is no such investigation, i.e. no IRP available, then the lower threshold applies.) Seems fine to me. Speak with you all in ~18hours... Jordan On 22 February 2016 at 16:14, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org<mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>> wrote: Hello all, As requested by the co-Chairs, staff has made available the updated Core Proposal, Annexes and Appendices as they were prepared after comments received from the 17 February posting in anticipation of a 19 February distribution of the proposal to the Chartering Organizations. They can be found on the wiki here (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw<https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw>). These documents are not final, however have been made available for preliminary review. Any discussions on the list from 19 February to now are not reflected. Thanks, Hillary -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20674-3403> Email: hillary.jett@icann.org<mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org> ________________________________ 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/> _______________________________________________ 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> -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ - your voice for the Open Internet +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz<http://www.internetnz.nz> _______________________________________________ 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>

Thanks Mike, Brett and Greg - very useful. On 2/22/2016 11:32 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:

On D, to accurately reflect the current text, I believe the word "solely" should be removed.

Agree with Brett, E should be THREE, not FOUR. There's also an extra "the" before "Board" each time.

Also agree that the issue framed by the Board is THREE vs. FOUR in C and E.

Greg

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote:

Agree, though point E should be 3, not 4, if it is to reflect the status quo.

The Board is proposing changing 3 to 4 in points C and E, I believe.

________________________________ 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 Feb 22, 2016, at 6:01 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>> wrote:

Very good summary, as far as I am concerned.

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 Chartier, Mike S Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 5:15 PM To: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>>; 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>>> Cc: ACCT-STAFF <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org><mailto:acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Updated Proposal Documents Available for Review

The relevant language in the draft of the 19th seems awkward at best. It may also be useful to have a table of simple sentences something like below, to clearly capture what people are in support of (or not).

A. The GAC MAY NOT participate as a decision-maker in community deliberations involving a challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC consensus advice.

B. If an IRP has found that in implementing GAC advice the Board acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws the threshold is set at THREE in support and no more than one objects to recall the entire the Board.

C. If an IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question the threshold is set at THREE in support and no more than one objects to recall the entire the Board.

D. If an IRP has found that in implementing GAC advice the Board HAS NOT acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, the Empowered Community may NOT exercise its power to recall the entire the Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP.

E. If an IRP has found that in implementing GAC advice the Board HAS NOT acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, the Empowered Community MAY exercise its power to recall the entire the Board based on other grounds and the threshold is set at FOUR in support and no more than one objects.

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 Thomas Rickert Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 4:18 PM To: Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> Cc: ACCT-STAFF <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org><mailto:acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>>; 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] Updated Proposal Documents Available for Review

Brett, we will have the text available and let me also remind you of my response to Larry.

I said you do not have to join the Board to not be trusted. Becoming a CCWG co-chair is sufficient for that.

Thought I should share this with you. Let's all try to keep smiling in these challenging days.

Thomas --- rickert.net <http://rickert.net><http://rickert.net>

Am 22.02.2016 um 22:09 schrieb Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>>: If I could make a small request to the Chairs, I think it would be helpful to have the relevant text under discussion in the center Adobe window tonight so that everyone does not need to page through PDF is a separate window.

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 Jordan Carter Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 4:41 AM To: Hillary Jett Cc: ACCT-STAFF; CCWG-Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Updated Proposal Documents Available for Review

Thanks Hillary for this.

All, in prep for our call on the 23rd, I thought I'd extract and post the exact wording from Annex 2 about the carve out thresholds that seems to be at the centre of the discussion. Here they are:

Quote from Annex 2 - para 72 and bullet:

- - - The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional Participant because the Community Power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC consensus advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects,with the following exception:

Where the power to be exercised is recalling the entire Board for implementing GAC advice, the reduced threshold would apply only either (1) after an IRP has found that, in implementing GAC advice, the Board acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, or (2) if the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question. If the Empowered Community has brought such an IRP and does not prevail, the Empowered Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire the Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. It may, however, exercise that power based on other grounds. - - -

I read this as establishing a threshold of three SOs/ACs in support to use the Board recall power in only two situations:

1) if IRP held that Board acted inconsistent with bylaws 2) if IRP is not available

Otherwise the threshold would remain at four SOs/ACs in support.

I cannot think of many circumstances where the IRP is not available, since almost any action of the Board could be tested against the bylaws through an IRP.

If an IRP finds in favour of the Board, the threshold would remain at four SOs/ACs in support. Yes, it breaches the principle of unanimity being never required, but it does so after a thorough investigation by an IRP process. (If there is no such investigation, i.e. no IRP available, then the lower threshold applies.)

Seems fine to me.

Speak with you all in ~18hours...

Jordan

On 22 February 2016 at 16:14, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org><mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>>> wrote: Hello all,

As requested by the co-Chairs, staff has made available the updated Core Proposal, Annexes and Appendices as they were prepared after comments received from the 17 February posting in anticipation of a 19 February distribution of the proposal to the Chartering Organizations. They can be found on the wiki here (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw<https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw>).

These documents are not final, however have been made available for preliminary review. Any discussions on the list from 19 February to now are not reflected.

Thanks, Hillary

-- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20674-3403><tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20674-3403> Email: hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org><mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>>

________________________________ 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/> _______________________________________________ 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>

-- Jordan Carter

Chief Executive InternetNZ - your voice for the Open Internet

+64-4-495-2118 <tel:%2B64-4-495-2118> (office) | +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz><mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz><http://www.internetnz.nz>

_______________________________________________ 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> _______________________________________________ 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

-- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Dear Jordan, Like you I also wish to receive more consensus building messages. If it is so unlikely , why not accepting 4 SO/AC for Board Removal in case an IRP is not available. Once again this would considerably calm down the situation. What is the real problem if we make such exception in case of Carve-Out. Like you I want to finalize the Report. Do you as the chairman of WP1 and Beckie as the chairman of WP2 have really a problem to do so. It will considerably facilitate the discussions tomorrow . Pls reflect on that and positively respond. Regards Kavouss 2016-02-22 12:06 GMT+01:00 Mark Carvell <mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk>:

Dera Hillary

Many thanks - most helpful.

Apologies if I have missed a relevant message or possibly overlooked them amongst the respective documentation but are the *Minority Statements *now collated and available to review?

​Best regards

Mark​

Mark Carvell ​United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN​

Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062

On 22 February 2016 at 03:14, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org> wrote:

...

Hello all,

As requested by the co-Chairs, staff has made available the updated Core Proposal, Annexes and Appendices as they were prepared after comments received from the 17 February posting in anticipation of a 19 February distribution of the proposal to the Chartering Organizations. They can be found on the wiki here (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).

These documents are *not* final, however have been made available for preliminary review. Any discussions on the list from 19 February to now are not reflected.

Thanks, Hillary

-- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org

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

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

Hi Mark, All Minority Statements are located in Appendix A in the order in which they were received. I hope that is helpful, Hillary On Feb 22, 2016, at 6:07 AM, Mark Carvell <mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk>> wrote: Dera Hillary Many thanks - most helpful. Apologies if I have missed a relevant message or possibly overlooked them amongst the respective documentation but are the Minority Statements now collated and available to review? ?Best regards Mark? Mark Carvell ?United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN? Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk> tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062 On 22 February 2016 at 03:14, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org<mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>> wrote: Hello all, As requested by the co-Chairs, staff has made available the updated Core Proposal, Annexes and Appendices as they were prepared after comments received from the 17 February posting in anticipation of a 19 February distribution of the proposal to the Chartering Organizations. They can be found on the wiki here (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). These documents are not final, however have been made available for preliminary review. Any discussions on the list from 19 February to now are not reflected. Thanks, Hillary -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20674-3403> Email: hillary.jett@icann.org<mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org> _______________________________________________ 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

Hi Izumi, Sorry for the confusion and thank you for flagging! I appear to have accidentally swapped the locations of the 17th and 19th of February drafts for Appendix A in posting. The two documents have been put into their correct columns and you can find your Minority Statement on page 8 here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58723723&preview=/5... Best, Hillary On 2/22/16, 3:42 PM, "Izumi Okutani" <izumi@nic.ad.jp> wrote: Dear Hillary, Thank you for sharing the updated document. Would you help me find where the request for minority statement from the ASO is reflected? http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0... I looked for it both Appendix A (19th Feb version) and Appendix H but wasn't able to find it in the latest documents at this point. Regards, Izumi On 2016/02/22 22:14, Hillary Jett wrote: Hi Mark, All Minority Statements are located in Appendix A in the order in which they were received. I hope that is helpful, Hillary On Feb 22, 2016, at 6:07 AM, Mark Carvell <mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk>> wrote: Dera Hillary Many thanks - most helpful. Apologies if I have missed a relevant message or possibly overlooked them amongst the respective documentation but are the Minority Statements now collated and available to review? ?Best regards Mark? Mark Carvell ?United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN? Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk> tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062 On 22 February 2016 at 03:14, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org<mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>> wrote: Hello all, As requested by the co-Chairs, staff has made available the updated Core Proposal, Annexes and Appendices as they were prepared after comments received from the 17 February posting in anticipation of a 19 February distribution of the proposal to the Chartering Organizations. They can be found on the wiki here (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). These documents are not final, however have been made available for preliminary review. Any discussions on the list from 19 February to now are not reflected. Thanks, Hillary -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20674-3403> Email: hillary.jett@icann.org<mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org> _______________________________________________ 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

Hi Phil, The language being discussed is Paragraph 72 in Annex 02: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58723723&preview=/5... Best, Hillary From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:20 AM To: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org>, CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: ACCT-STAFF <acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: RE: Updated Proposal Documents Available for Review Hillary: In which of these documents is the controversial paragraph 72 that was the focus of the CCWG discussion that took place at 600 UTC today? I have reviewed all the likely suspects and have been unable to locate it. Thanks you. Best, Philip 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 Hillary Jett Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 10:14 PM To: CCWG-Accountability Cc: ACCT-STAFF Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Updated Proposal Documents Available for Review Hello all, As requested by the co-Chairs, staff has made available the updated Core Proposal, Annexes and Appendices as they were prepared after comments received from the 17 February posting in anticipation of a 19 February distribution of the proposal to the Chartering Organizations. They can be found on the wiki here (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). These documents are not final, however have been made available for preliminary review. Any discussions on the list from 19 February to now are not reflected. Thanks, Hillary -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.