Dear Co-chairs You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon. This is an ALARMING SITUATION , If there is no consensus means there is no consensus , We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one. Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such If a mistake has occurred we should repair it . Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator . THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that. You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon Regards Kavouss
Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message Regards Kavouss 2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Co-chairs You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon. This is an ALARMING SITUATION , If there is no consensus means there is no consensus , We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one. Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such If a mistake has occurred we should repair it . Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator . THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that. You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon Regards Kavouss
It is alarming that a few GAC members could seek to undo a carefully balanced compromise. And even more alarming that those few GAC members could so quickly trigger a Board intervention. The carve-out is balanced against the concerns of other stakeholders with regard to (i) the proposed supermajority threshold for Board rejection of GAC advice and (ii) the GAC's overall role as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community, rather than its traditional advisory capacity. The carve-out itself underwent a compromise, requiring the Community to go through an IRP before exercising the power of Board recall. When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well. Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out? I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all. Greg On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
wrote:
Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message Regards Kavouss
2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Co-chairs You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon. This is an ALARMING SITUATION , If there is no consensus means there is no consensus , We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one. Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such If a mistake has occurred we should repair it . Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator . THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that. You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon Regards Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Greg: Assuming that the new Board position is indeed a response to a minority position of a few GAC members, I am in full agreement that it “should serve as a warning to us all”. Indeed, it emphasizes exactly why the GAC should not be able to block the community’s ability to hold the Board accountable for implementing GAC consensus advice that the community feels is outside the scope of the Bylaws or Mission Statement. 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 Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Thomas Rickert Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue It is alarming that a few GAC members could seek to undo a carefully balanced compromise. And even more alarming that those few GAC members could so quickly trigger a Board intervention. The carve-out is balanced against the concerns of other stakeholders with regard to (i) the proposed supermajority threshold for Board rejection of GAC advice and (ii) the GAC's overall role as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community, rather than its traditional advisory capacity. The carve-out itself underwent a compromise, requiring the Community to go through an IRP before exercising the power of Board recall. When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well. Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out? I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all. Greg On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message Regards Kavouss 2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear Co-chairs You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon. This is an ALARMING SITUATION , If there is no consensus means there is no consensus , We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one. Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such If a mistake has occurred we should repair it . Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator . THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that. You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon Regards 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
+1 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: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:52 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue Greg: Assuming that the new Board position is indeed a response to a minority position of a few GAC members, I am in full agreement that it “should serve as a warning to us all”. Indeed, it emphasizes exactly why the GAC should not be able to block the community’s ability to hold the Board accountable for implementing GAC consensus advice that the community feels is outside the scope of the Bylaws or Mission Statement. 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> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Thomas Rickert Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue It is alarming that a few GAC members could seek to undo a carefully balanced compromise. And even more alarming that those few GAC members could so quickly trigger a Board intervention. The carve-out is balanced against the concerns of other stakeholders with regard to (i) the proposed supermajority threshold for Board rejection of GAC advice and (ii) the GAC's overall role as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community, rather than its traditional advisory capacity. The carve-out itself underwent a compromise, requiring the Community to go through an IRP before exercising the power of Board recall. When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well. Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out? I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all. Greg On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message Regards Kavouss 2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >: Dear Co-chairs You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon. This is an ALARMING SITUATION , If there is no consensus means there is no consensus , We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one. Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such If a mistake has occurred we should repair it . Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator . THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that. You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon Regards 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 _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
Unless the GAC can present us with a consensus objection or some form of wholesome proposal reflecting the full breath of membership of the GAC I think we need to move forward noting the objections of the 11 GAC members. The board is free to vote against our proposal. Do not let this 11th hour rush to push the CCWG into a corner move us from our long and hopefully fruitful journey. -James From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Date: Friday 19 February 2016 at 6:15 p.m. To: 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue +1 Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> [cid:image001.png@01D16B17.90D93970]<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:52 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue Greg: Assuming that the new Board position is indeed a response to a minority position of a few GAC members, I am in full agreement that it “should serve as a warning to us all”. Indeed, it emphasizes exactly why the GAC should not be able to block the community’s ability to hold the Board accountable for implementing GAC consensus advice that the community feels is outside the scope of the Bylaws or Mission Statement. 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> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue It is alarming that a few GAC members could seek to undo a carefully balanced compromise. And even more alarming that those few GAC members could so quickly trigger a Board intervention. The carve-out is balanced against the concerns of other stakeholders with regard to (i) the proposed supermajority threshold for Board rejection of GAC advice and (ii) the GAC's overall role as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community, rather than its traditional advisory capacity. The carve-out itself underwent a compromise, requiring the Community to go through an IRP before exercising the power of Board recall. When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well. Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out? I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all. Greg On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message Regards Kavouss 2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear Co-chairs You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon. This is an ALARMING SITUATION , If there is no consensus means there is no consensus , We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one. Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such If a mistake has occurred we should repair it . Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator . THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that. You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon Regards 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
On 19 Feb 2016 7:21 p.m., "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
Unless the GAC can present us with a consensus objection or some form of
wholesome proposal reflecting the full breath of membership of the GAC I think we need to move forward noting the objections of the 11 GAC members.
SO: While I am not GAC, I think the statement above is uncalled for. Let's just not start doing the maths, otherwise I can assure you that 1 govt could claim to have gazillion individuals behind it. One could also prove that if GNSO or any other decision making SO/AC in the empowered community for instance apply the same definition of consensus that GAC has they will be in the same position GAC finds itself right now. I don't think it's at all fair to leverage on the fact that GAC may not be able to achieve consensus to create an imbalance in the multistakeholder model.
The board is free to vote against our proposal. Do not let this 11th hour rush to push the CCWG into a corner move us from our long and hopefully fruitful journey.
SO: I am also not interested in delaying the proposal any further as well but considering the "carve out" came at the 10th hour, we need to be careful about taking it through to the 12th without considering its full implication. Regards
-James
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Date: Friday 19 February 2016 at 6:15 p.m. To: 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, 'Greg Shatan' < gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net>, " accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
+1
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key
From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:52 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
Greg:
Assuming that the new Board position is indeed a response to a minority position of a few GAC members, I am in full agreement that it “should serve as a warning to us all”.
Indeed, it emphasizes exactly why the GAC should not be able to block the community’s ability to hold the Board accountable for implementing GAC consensus advice that the community feels is outside the scope of the Bylaws or Mission Statement.
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 Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Thomas Rickert Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
It is alarming that a few GAC members could seek to undo a carefully balanced compromise. And even more alarming that those few GAC members could so quickly trigger a Board intervention.
The carve-out is balanced against the concerns of other stakeholders with regard to (i) the proposed supermajority threshold for Board rejection of GAC advice and (ii) the GAC's overall role as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community, rather than its traditional advisory capacity. The carve-out itself underwent a compromise, requiring the Community to go through an IRP before exercising the power of Board recall.
When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well.
Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out?
I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all.
Greg
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message
Regards
Kavouss
2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Co-chairs
You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon.
This is an ALARMING SITUATION ,
If there is no consensus means there is no consensus ,
We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one.
Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such
If a mistake has occurred we should repair it .
Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator .
THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL
Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls
Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that.
You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon
Regards
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ 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: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1 From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 1:21 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue Unless the GAC can present us with a consensus objection or some form of wholesome proposal reflecting the full breath of membership of the GAC I think we need to move forward noting the objections of the 11 GAC members. The board is free to vote against our proposal. Do not let this 11th hour rush to push the CCWG into a corner move us from our long and hopefully fruitful journey. -James From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Date: Friday 19 February 2016 at 6:15 p.m. To: 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue +1 Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> [cid:image001.png@01D16B2D.09B2D3F0]<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:52 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue Greg: Assuming that the new Board position is indeed a response to a minority position of a few GAC members, I am in full agreement that it “should serve as a warning to us all”. Indeed, it emphasizes exactly why the GAC should not be able to block the community’s ability to hold the Board accountable for implementing GAC consensus advice that the community feels is outside the scope of the Bylaws or Mission Statement. 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> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue It is alarming that a few GAC members could seek to undo a carefully balanced compromise. And even more alarming that those few GAC members could so quickly trigger a Board intervention. The carve-out is balanced against the concerns of other stakeholders with regard to (i) the proposed supermajority threshold for Board rejection of GAC advice and (ii) the GAC's overall role as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community, rather than its traditional advisory capacity. The carve-out itself underwent a compromise, requiring the Community to go through an IRP before exercising the power of Board recall. When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well. Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out? I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all. Greg On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message Regards Kavouss 2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear Co-chairs You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon. This is an ALARMING SITUATION , If there is no consensus means there is no consensus , We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one. Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such If a mistake has occurred we should repair it . Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator . THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that. You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon Regards 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
+2 ________________________________ 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 Salaets, Ken Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 3:49 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue +1 From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 1:21 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>; 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>; 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue Unless the GAC can present us with a consensus objection or some form of wholesome proposal reflecting the full breath of membership of the GAC I think we need to move forward noting the objections of the 11 GAC members. The board is free to vote against our proposal. Do not let this 11th hour rush to push the CCWG into a corner move us from our long and hopefully fruitful journey. -James From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Date: Friday 19 February 2016 at 6:15 p.m. To: 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue +1 Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> [cid:image001.png@01D16B30.A4BE6B40]<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:52 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue Greg: Assuming that the new Board position is indeed a response to a minority position of a few GAC members, I am in full agreement that it “should serve as a warning to us all”. Indeed, it emphasizes exactly why the GAC should not be able to block the community’s ability to hold the Board accountable for implementing GAC consensus advice that the community feels is outside the scope of the Bylaws or Mission Statement. 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> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue It is alarming that a few GAC members could seek to undo a carefully balanced compromise. And even more alarming that those few GAC members could so quickly trigger a Board intervention. The carve-out is balanced against the concerns of other stakeholders with regard to (i) the proposed supermajority threshold for Board rejection of GAC advice and (ii) the GAC's overall role as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community, rather than its traditional advisory capacity. The carve-out itself underwent a compromise, requiring the Community to go through an IRP before exercising the power of Board recall. When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well. Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out? I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all. Greg On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message Regards Kavouss 2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear Co-chairs You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon. This is an ALARMING SITUATION , If there is no consensus means there is no consensus , We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one. Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such If a mistake has occurred we should repair it . Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator . THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that. You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon Regards 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> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
Well, NO! Actually Minus whatever it takes. If a few of you wish to gratuitously create an international incident, before the transition has evan started, then that is your affair. This WG is clearly not competent, professionally or diplomatically to address this issue. The relevant negotiation is within the GAC itself, and that - I gather - will be difficult enough. Regards CW On 19 Feb 2016, at 22:14, "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
+2
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
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Salaets, Ken Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 3:49 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
+1
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 1:21 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
Unless the GAC can present us with a consensus objection or some form of wholesome proposal reflecting the full breath of membership of the GAC I think we need to move forward noting the objections of the 11 GAC members.
The board is free to vote against our proposal. Do not let this 11th hour rush to push the CCWG into a corner move us from our long and hopefully fruitful journey.
-James
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Date: Friday 19 February 2016 at 6:15 p.m. To: 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
+1
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <image001.png>
From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:52 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
Greg:
Assuming that the new Board position is indeed a response to a minority position of a few GAC members, I am in full agreement that it “should serve as a warning to us all”.
Indeed, it emphasizes exactly why the GAC should not be able to block the community’s ability to hold the Board accountable for implementing GAC consensus advice that the community feels is outside the scope of the Bylaws or Mission Statement.
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 Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Thomas Rickert Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
It is alarming that a few GAC members could seek to undo a carefully balanced compromise. And even more alarming that those few GAC members could so quickly trigger a Board intervention.
The carve-out is balanced against the concerns of other stakeholders with regard to (i) the proposed supermajority threshold for Board rejection of GAC advice and (ii) the GAC's overall role as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community, rather than its traditional advisory capacity. The carve-out itself underwent a compromise, requiring the Community to go through an IRP before exercising the power of Board recall.
When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well.
Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out?
I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all.
Greg
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message Regards Kavouss
2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Dear Co-chairs You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon. This is an ALARMING SITUATION , If there is no consensus means there is no consensus , We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one. Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such If a mistake has occurred we should repair it . Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator . THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that. You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon Regards Kavouss
_______________________________________________ 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: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
International Incident, wow :-)-O The CCWG accountability can do whatever it wants, even though I agree on the competence or rather lack thereof. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini On 20 Feb 2016, 01:06 +0200, Christopher Wilkinson<lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>, wrote:
Well, NO! Actually Minus whatever it takes.
If a few of you wish to gratuitously create an international incident, before the transition has evan started, then that is your affair. This WG is clearly not competent, professionally or diplomatically to address this issue.
The relevant negotiation is within the GAC itself, and that - I gather - will be difficult enough.
Regards
CW
Dear All, There is big difference between providing the rights for GAC as decisional making entity and to exercise those rights GAC has not decided on whether they wish to exercise that right or not, Supermajority and reconsideration of rejected Recommendation of other constituencies and rejection of GAC Advice should have the same threshold If ONE GETS THE BENEF OF 2/3 MAJORITY the other should ALSO have the same. BENEFIT If GAC advice could be rejected by the Board with simple Majority the Recommendation of other entities SHOULD also be rejected by simple majority. If the Board gets into negotiation with GAC after it has rejected its advice, they also get into negotiation with other constituencies if their Recommendations were rejected . Currently there is a full imbalance between the PDP Recommendations treatments and GAC advice The PDP Recommendations developed by supermajority in some constituencies or by so-called SOFT CONSENSUS could only be rejected by the Board with 2/3 MAJORITY BUT GAC advice ,normally decided by consensus could only be rejected by SIMPLE MAJORITY This is unfair. However, after rejection with such an imbalance criteria both cases could be negotiated by Board and the two constituencies. I do not agree with the argument submitted with the risk that those people submitting such argument may disserve the ethic of correspondence and going out of the limit and not observing mutual respect Kavouss 2016-02-19 18:51 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>:
Greg:
Assuming that the new Board position is indeed a response to a minority position of a few GAC members, I am in full agreement that it “should serve as a warning to us all”.
Indeed, it emphasizes exactly why the GAC should not be able to block the community’s ability to hold the Board accountable for implementing GAC consensus advice that the community feels is outside the scope of the Bylaws or Mission Statement.
Best. Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <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 *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Thomas Rickert *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
It is alarming that a few GAC members could seek to undo a carefully balanced compromise. And even more alarming that those few GAC members could so quickly trigger a Board intervention.
The carve-out is balanced against the concerns of other stakeholders with regard to (i) the proposed supermajority threshold for Board rejection of GAC advice and (ii) the GAC's overall role as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community, rather than its traditional advisory capacity. The carve-out itself underwent a compromise, requiring the Community to go through an IRP before exercising the power of Board recall.
When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well.
Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out?
I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all.
Greg
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message
Regards
Kavouss
2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Co-chairs
You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon.
This is an ALARMING SITUATION ,
If there is no consensus means there is no consensus ,
We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one.
Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such
If a mistake has occurred we should repair it .
Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator .
THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL
Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls
Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that.
You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon
Regards
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ 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: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
I feel like I’m in the movie Ground Hog Day and every day is a 1 am ICANN call. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 1:17 PM To: Phil Corwin Cc: Thomas Rickert; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue Dear All, There is big difference between providing the rights for GAC as decisional making entity and to exercise those rights GAC has not decided on whether they wish to exercise that right or not, Supermajority and reconsideration of rejected Recommendation of other constituencies and rejection of GAC Advice should have the same threshold If ONE GETS THE BENEF OF 2/3 MAJORITY the other should ALSO have the same. BENEFIT If GAC advice could be rejected by the Board with simple Majority the Recommendation of other entities SHOULD also be rejected by simple majority. If the Board gets into negotiation with GAC after it has rejected its advice, they also get into negotiation with other constituencies if their Recommendations were rejected . Currently there is a full imbalance between the PDP Recommendations treatments and GAC advice The PDP Recommendations developed by supermajority in some constituencies or by so-called SOFT CONSENSUS could only be rejected by the Board with 2/3 MAJORITY BUT GAC advice ,normally decided by consensus could only be rejected by SIMPLE MAJORITY This is unfair. However, after rejection with such an imbalance criteria both cases could be negotiated by Board and the two constituencies. I do not agree with the argument submitted with the risk that those people submitting such argument may disserve the ethic of correspondence and going out of the limit and not observing mutual respect Kavouss 2016-02-19 18:51 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>: Greg: Assuming that the new Board position is indeed a response to a minority position of a few GAC members, I am in full agreement that it “should serve as a warning to us all”. Indeed, it emphasizes exactly why the GAC should not be able to block the community’s ability to hold the Board accountable for implementing GAC consensus advice that the community feels is outside the scope of the Bylaws or Mission Statement. Best. Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel: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> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue It is alarming that a few GAC members could seek to undo a carefully balanced compromise. And even more alarming that those few GAC members could so quickly trigger a Board intervention. The carve-out is balanced against the concerns of other stakeholders with regard to (i) the proposed supermajority threshold for Board rejection of GAC advice and (ii) the GAC's overall role as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community, rather than its traditional advisory capacity. The carve-out itself underwent a compromise, requiring the Community to go through an IRP before exercising the power of Board recall. When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well. Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out? I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all. Greg On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message Regards Kavouss 2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear Co-chairs You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon. This is an ALARMING SITUATION , If there is no consensus means there is no consensus , We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one. Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such If a mistake has occurred we should repair it . Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator . THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that. You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon Regards Kavouss ________________________________ 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> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
Dear All, Have we ever received a consensus objection or some form of wholesome proposal reflecting the full breath of membership of the other constituencies I think we need to reflect and forward correctly . Who knows till end of ICANN 55 howmany objections will be tableed? Regards Kavouss 2016-02-19 19:23 GMT+01:00 Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>:
I feel like I’m in the movie Ground Hog Day and every day is a 1 am ICANN call.
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 1:17 PM *To:* Phil Corwin *Cc:* Thomas Rickert; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
Dear All,
There is big difference between providing the rights for GAC as decisional making entity and to exercise those rights
GAC has not decided on whether they wish to exercise that right or not,
Supermajority and reconsideration of rejected Recommendation of other constituencies and rejection of GAC Advice should have the same threshold
If ONE GETS THE BENEF OF 2/3 MAJORITY the other should ALSO have the same. BENEFIT
If GAC advice could be rejected by the Board with simple Majority the Recommendation of other entities SHOULD also be rejected by simple majority.
If the Board gets into negotiation with GAC after it has rejected its advice, they also get into negotiation with other constituencies if their Recommendations were rejected .
Currently there is a full imbalance between the PDP Recommendations treatments and GAC advice
The PDP Recommendations developed by supermajority in some constituencies or by so-called SOFT CONSENSUS could only be rejected by the Board with 2/3 MAJORITY BUT GAC advice ,normally decided by consensus could only be rejected by SIMPLE MAJORITY
This is unfair.
However, after rejection with such an imbalance criteria both cases could be negotiated by Board and the two constituencies.
I do not agree with the argument submitted with the risk that those people submitting such argument may disserve the ethic of correspondence and going out of the limit and not observing mutual respect
Kavouss
2016-02-19 18:51 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>:
Greg:
Assuming that the new Board position is indeed a response to a minority position of a few GAC members, I am in full agreement that it “should serve as a warning to us all”.
Indeed, it emphasizes exactly why the GAC should not be able to block the community’s ability to hold the Board accountable for implementing GAC consensus advice that the community feels is outside the scope of the Bylaws or Mission Statement.
Best. Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <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 *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Thomas Rickert *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
It is alarming that a few GAC members could seek to undo a carefully balanced compromise. And even more alarming that those few GAC members could so quickly trigger a Board intervention.
The carve-out is balanced against the concerns of other stakeholders with regard to (i) the proposed supermajority threshold for Board rejection of GAC advice and (ii) the GAC's overall role as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community, rather than its traditional advisory capacity. The carve-out itself underwent a compromise, requiring the Community to go through an IRP before exercising the power of Board recall.
When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well.
Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out?
I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all.
Greg
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message
Regards
Kavouss
2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Co-chairs
You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon.
This is an ALARMING SITUATION ,
If there is no consensus means there is no consensus ,
We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one.
Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such
If a mistake has occurred we should repair it .
Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator .
THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL
Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls
Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that.
You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon
Regards
Kavouss
------------------------------ 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
_______________________________________________ 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: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
In that case we miss all our timelines and might as well just throw everything that we have worked for out the window. This is a tactic, and one which we must reject and move forward as planned. -jg From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Friday 19 February 2016 at 6:30 p.m. To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Cc: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue Dear All, Have we ever received a consensus objection or some form of wholesome proposal reflecting the full breath of membership of the other constituencies I think we need to reflect and forward correctly . Who knows till end of ICANN 55 howmany objections will be tableed? Regards Kavouss 2016-02-19 19:23 GMT+01:00 Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>: I feel like I’m in the movie Ground Hog Day and every day is a 1 am ICANN call. 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 Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 1:17 PM To: Phil Corwin Cc: Thomas Rickert; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue Dear All, There is big difference between providing the rights for GAC as decisional making entity and to exercise those rights GAC has not decided on whether they wish to exercise that right or not, Supermajority and reconsideration of rejected Recommendation of other constituencies and rejection of GAC Advice should have the same threshold If ONE GETS THE BENEF OF 2/3 MAJORITY the other should ALSO have the same. BENEFIT If GAC advice could be rejected by the Board with simple Majority the Recommendation of other entities SHOULD also be rejected by simple majority. If the Board gets into negotiation with GAC after it has rejected its advice, they also get into negotiation with other constituencies if their Recommendations were rejected . Currently there is a full imbalance between the PDP Recommendations treatments and GAC advice The PDP Recommendations developed by supermajority in some constituencies or by so-called SOFT CONSENSUS could only be rejected by the Board with 2/3 MAJORITY BUT GAC advice ,normally decided by consensus could only be rejected by SIMPLE MAJORITY This is unfair. However, after rejection with such an imbalance criteria both cases could be negotiated by Board and the two constituencies. I do not agree with the argument submitted with the risk that those people submitting such argument may disserve the ethic of correspondence and going out of the limit and not observing mutual respect Kavouss 2016-02-19 18:51 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>: Greg: Assuming that the new Board position is indeed a response to a minority position of a few GAC members, I am in full agreement that it “should serve as a warning to us all”. Indeed, it emphasizes exactly why the GAC should not be able to block the community’s ability to hold the Board accountable for implementing GAC consensus advice that the community feels is outside the scope of the Bylaws or Mission Statement. Best. Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel: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> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue It is alarming that a few GAC members could seek to undo a carefully balanced compromise. And even more alarming that those few GAC members could so quickly trigger a Board intervention. The carve-out is balanced against the concerns of other stakeholders with regard to (i) the proposed supermajority threshold for Board rejection of GAC advice and (ii) the GAC's overall role as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community, rather than its traditional advisory capacity. The carve-out itself underwent a compromise, requiring the Community to go through an IRP before exercising the power of Board recall. When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well. Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out? I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all. Greg On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message Regards Kavouss 2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear Co-chairs You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon. This is an ALARMING SITUATION , If there is no consensus means there is no consensus , We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one. Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such If a mistake has occurred we should repair it . Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator . THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that. You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon Regards Kavouss ________________________________ BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097<tel: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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
James This worries me. The CCWG proposals will change the relationships in ICANN, and will affect ccTLDs as well as the other stakeholders. The sands are shifting, yet, just like the GAC many ccTLD managers have not had the opportunity to fully consider the final draft. I admit I remain skeptical that it is in the long-term interests of ICANN that the organisations seems so closely tied to partisan United States political interests, and ccTLD managers, PARTICULARLY those who are not members of the ccNSO (there are about 100 of these) must be given an opportunity to consider the proposal once it is final. "Move forward as planned" you say. But planned by whom? That formulation seems less like bottom-up decision making that top-down. We should simply take a deep breath, and stop warning each other, or getting angry, and take stock. So, where ARE we exactly? On 19/02/16 18:32, James Gannon wrote:
In that case we miss all our timelines and might as well just throw everything that we have worked for out the window. This is a tactic, and one which we must reject and move forward as planned.
-jg
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Friday 19 February 2016 at 6:30 p.m. To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Cc: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
Dear All, Have we ever received a consensus objection or some form of wholesome proposal reflecting the full breath of membership of the other constituencies I think we need to reflect and forward correctly . Who knows till end of ICANN 55 howmany objections will be tableed? Regards Kavouss
2016-02-19 19:23 GMT+01:00 Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>:
I feel like I’m in the movie Ground Hog Day and every day is a 1 am ICANN call. ____
__ __
*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 *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 1:17 PM *To:* Phil Corwin *Cc:* Thomas Rickert; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue____
__ __
Dear All,____
There is big difference between providing the rights for GAC as decisional making entity and to exercise those rights____
GAC has not decided on whether they wish to exercise that right or not,____
Supermajority and reconsideration of rejected Recommendation of other constituencies and rejection of GAC Advice should have the same threshold ____
If ONE GETS THE BENEF OF 2/3 MAJORITY the other should ALSO have the same. BENEFIT ____
If GAC advice could be rejected by the Board with simple Majority the Recommendation of other entities SHOULD also be rejected by simple majority.____
If the Board gets into negotiation with GAC after it has rejected its advice, they also get into negotiation with other constituencies if their Recommendations were rejected .____
Currently there is a full imbalance between the PDP Recommendations treatments and GAC advice____
The PDP Recommendations developed by supermajority in some constituencies or by so-called SOFT CONSENSUS could only be rejected by the Board with 2/3 MAJORITY BUT GAC advice ,normally decided by consensus could only be rejected by SIMPLE MAJORITY ____
This is unfair.____
However, after rejection with such an imbalance criteria both cases could be negotiated by Board and the two constituencies.____
I do not agree with the argument submitted with the risk that those people submitting such argument may disserve the ethic of correspondence and going out of the limit and not observing mutual respect ____
Kavouss ____
__ __
2016-02-19 18:51 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>:____
Greg:____
____
Assuming that the new Board position is indeed a response to a minority position of a few GAC members, I am in full agreement that it “should serve as a warning to us all”. ____
____
Indeed, it emphasizes exactly why the GAC should not be able to block the community’s ability to hold the Board accountable for implementing GAC consensus advice that the community feels is outside the scope of the Bylaws or Mission Statement.____
____
Best. Philip____
____
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*____
*Virtualaw LLC*____
*1155 F Street, NW*____
*Suite 1050*____
*Washington, DC 20004*____
*202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597>/Direct*____
*202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750>/Fax*____
*202-255-6172 <tel: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> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue____
____
It is alarming that a few GAC members could seek to undo a carefully balanced compromise. And even more alarming that those few GAC members could so quickly trigger a Board intervention.____
____
The carve-out is balanced against the concerns of other stakeholders with regard to (i) the proposed supermajority threshold for Board rejection of GAC advice and (ii) the GAC's overall role as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community, rather than its traditional advisory capacity. The carve-out itself underwent a compromise, requiring the Community to go through an IRP before exercising the power of Board recall.____
____
When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well.____
____
Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out?____
____
I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all.____
____
Greg____
____
____
____
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:____
Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message____
Regards____
Kavouss ____
____
2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:____
Dear Co-chairs____
You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon.____
This is an ALARMING SITUATION ,____
If there is no consensus means there is no consensus ,____
We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one.____
Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such____
If a mistake has occurred we should repair it .____
Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator .____
THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL ____
Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls____
Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that.____
You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon____
Regards____
Kavouss ____
____
------------------------------------------------------------------------ BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 <tel: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____
____
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16____
__ __
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Nigle Thank you very much for your wisdonm We are in the midddle of nowhere Kavouss 2016-02-19 19:39 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>:
James
This worries me. The CCWG proposals will change the relationships in ICANN, and will affect ccTLDs as well as the other stakeholders. The sands are shifting, yet, just like the GAC many ccTLD managers have not had the opportunity to fully consider the final draft.
I admit I remain skeptical that it is in the long-term interests of ICANN that the organisations seems so closely tied to partisan United States political interests, and ccTLD managers, PARTICULARLY those who are not members of the ccNSO (there are about 100 of these) must be given an opportunity to consider the proposal once it is final.
"Move forward as planned" you say. But planned by whom? That formulation seems less like bottom-up decision making that top-down.
We should simply take a deep breath, and stop warning each other, or getting angry, and take stock.
So, where ARE we exactly?
On 19/02/16 18:32, James Gannon wrote:
In that case we miss all our timelines and might as well just throw everything that we have worked for out the window. This is a tactic, and one which we must reject and move forward as planned.
-jg
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Friday 19 February 2016 at 6:30 p.m. To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net
Cc: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
Dear All, Have we ever received a consensus objection or some form of wholesome proposal reflecting the full breath of membership of the other constituencies I think we need to reflect and forward correctly . Who knows till end of ICANN 55 howmany objections will be tableed? Regards Kavouss
2016-02-19 19:23 GMT+01:00 Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>:
I feel like I’m in the movie Ground Hog Day and every day is a 1 am ICANN call. ____
__ __
*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 *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 1:17 PM *To:* Phil Corwin *Cc:* Thomas Rickert; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue____
__ __
Dear All,____
There is big difference between providing the rights for GAC as decisional making entity and to exercise those rights____
GAC has not decided on whether they wish to exercise that right or not,____
Supermajority and reconsideration of rejected Recommendation of other constituencies and rejection of GAC Advice should have the same threshold ____
If ONE GETS THE BENEF OF 2/3 MAJORITY the other should ALSO have the same. BENEFIT ____
If GAC advice could be rejected by the Board with simple Majority the Recommendation of other entities SHOULD also be rejected by simple majority.____
If the Board gets into negotiation with GAC after it has rejected its advice, they also get into negotiation with other constituencies if their Recommendations were rejected .____
Currently there is a full imbalance between the PDP Recommendations treatments and GAC advice____
The PDP Recommendations developed by supermajority in some constituencies or by so-called SOFT CONSENSUS could only be rejected by the Board with 2/3 MAJORITY BUT GAC advice ,normally decided by consensus could only be rejected by SIMPLE MAJORITY ____
This is unfair.____
However, after rejection with such an imbalance criteria both cases could be negotiated by Board and the two constituencies.____
I do not agree with the argument submitted with the risk that those people submitting such argument may disserve the ethic of correspondence and going out of the limit and not observing mutual respect ____
Kavouss ____
__ __
2016-02-19 18:51 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>:____
Greg:____
____
Assuming that the new Board position is indeed a response to a minority position of a few GAC members, I am in full agreement that it “should serve as a warning to us all”. ____
____
Indeed, it emphasizes exactly why the GAC should not be able to block the community’s ability to hold the Board accountable for implementing GAC consensus advice that the community feels is outside the scope of the Bylaws or Mission Statement.____
____
Best. Philip____
____
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*____
*Virtualaw LLC*____
*1155 F Street, NW*____
*Suite 1050*____
*Washington, DC 20004*____
*202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597>/Direct*____
*202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750>/Fax*____
*202-255-6172 <tel: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> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue____
____
It is alarming that a few GAC members could seek to undo a carefully balanced compromise. And even more alarming that those few GAC members could so quickly trigger a Board intervention.____
____
The carve-out is balanced against the concerns of other stakeholders with regard to (i) the proposed supermajority threshold for Board rejection of GAC advice and (ii) the GAC's overall role as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community, rather than its traditional advisory capacity. The carve-out itself underwent a compromise, requiring the Community to go through an IRP before exercising the power of Board recall.____
____
When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well.____
____
Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out?____
____
I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all.____
____
Greg____
____
____
____
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:____
Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message____
Regards____
Kavouss ____
____
2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:____
Dear Co-chairs____
You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon.____
This is an ALARMING SITUATION ,____
If there is no consensus means there is no consensus ,____
We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one.____
Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such____
If a mistake has occurred we should repair it .____
Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator .____
THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL ____
Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls____
Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that.____
You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon____
Regards____
Kavouss ____
____
------------------------------------------------------------------------ BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 <tel: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____
____
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16____
__ __
_______________________________________________ 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
Q. "So, where ARE we exactly?" A. We are hours away from the supposed deadline for delivery of the Final Recommendations to the Chartering Organizations, a deadline dictated by timeline considerations involving approval of the final Transition and Accountability plans by NTIA and, at a minimum, non-interference by the US Congress . We have a saying in Washington: The train is leaving the station,. You're either on it or under it. 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 -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 1:39 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue James This worries me. The CCWG proposals will change the relationships in ICANN, and will affect ccTLDs as well as the other stakeholders. The sands are shifting, yet, just like the GAC many ccTLD managers have not had the opportunity to fully consider the final draft. I admit I remain skeptical that it is in the long-term interests of ICANN that the organisations seems so closely tied to partisan United States political interests, and ccTLD managers, PARTICULARLY those who are not members of the ccNSO (there are about 100 of these) must be given an opportunity to consider the proposal once it is final. "Move forward as planned" you say. But planned by whom? That formulation seems less like bottom-up decision making that top-down. We should simply take a deep breath, and stop warning each other, or getting angry, and take stock. So, where ARE we exactly? On 19/02/16 18:32, James Gannon wrote:
In that case we miss all our timelines and might as well just throw everything that we have worked for out the window. This is a tactic, and one which we must reject and move forward as planned.
-jg
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Friday 19 February 2016 at 6:30 p.m. To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Cc: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
Dear All, Have we ever received a consensus objection or some form of wholesome proposal reflecting the full breath of membership of the other constituencies I think we need to reflect and forward correctly . Who knows till end of ICANN 55 howmany objections will be tableed? Regards Kavouss
2016-02-19 19:23 GMT+01:00 Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>:
I feel like I'm in the movie Ground Hog Day and every day is a 1 am ICANN call. ____
__ __
*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 *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 1:17 PM *To:* Phil Corwin *Cc:* Thomas Rickert; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue____
__ __
Dear All,____
There is big difference between providing the rights for GAC as decisional making entity and to exercise those rights____
GAC has not decided on whether they wish to exercise that right or not,____
Supermajority and reconsideration of rejected Recommendation of other constituencies and rejection of GAC Advice should have the same threshold ____
If ONE GETS THE BENEF OF 2/3 MAJORITY the other should ALSO have the same. BENEFIT ____
If GAC advice could be rejected by the Board with simple Majority the Recommendation of other entities SHOULD also be rejected by simple majority.____
If the Board gets into negotiation with GAC after it has rejected its advice, they also get into negotiation with other constituencies if their Recommendations were rejected .____
Currently there is a full imbalance between the PDP Recommendations treatments and GAC advice____
The PDP Recommendations developed by supermajority in some constituencies or by so-called SOFT CONSENSUS could only be rejected by the Board with 2/3 MAJORITY BUT GAC advice ,normally decided by consensus could only be rejected by SIMPLE MAJORITY ____
This is unfair.____
However, after rejection with such an imbalance criteria both cases could be negotiated by Board and the two constituencies.____
I do not agree with the argument submitted with the risk that those people submitting such argument may disserve the ethic of correspondence and going out of the limit and not observing mutual respect ____
Kavouss ____
__ __
2016-02-19 18:51 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>:____
Greg:____
____
Assuming that the new Board position is indeed a response to a minority position of a few GAC members, I am in full agreement that it "should serve as a warning to us all". ____
____
Indeed, it emphasizes exactly why the GAC should not be able to block the community's ability to hold the Board accountable for implementing GAC consensus advice that the community feels is outside the scope of the Bylaws or Mission Statement.____
____
Best. Philip____
____
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*____
*Virtualaw LLC*____
*1155 F Street, NW*____
*Suite 1050*____
*Washington, DC 20004*____
*202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597>/Direct*____
*202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750>/Fax*____
*202-255-6172 <tel: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> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue____
____
It is alarming that a few GAC members could seek to undo a carefully balanced compromise. And even more alarming that those few GAC members could so quickly trigger a Board intervention.____
____
The carve-out is balanced against the concerns of other stakeholders with regard to (i) the proposed supermajority threshold for Board rejection of GAC advice and (ii) the GAC's overall role as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community, rather than its traditional advisory capacity. The carve-out itself underwent a compromise, requiring the Community to go through an IRP before exercising the power of Board recall.____
____
When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well.____
____
Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out?____
____
I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all.____
____
Greg____
____
____
____
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:____
Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message____
Regards____
Kavouss ____
____
2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:____
Dear Co-chairs____
You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon.____
This is an ALARMING SITUATION ,____
If there is no consensus means there is no consensus ,____
We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one.____
Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such____
If a mistake has occurred we should repair it .____
Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator .____
THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL ____
Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls____
Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that.____
You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon____
Regards____
Kavouss ____
____
------------------------------------------------------------------------ BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 <tel: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__ __
____
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16____
__ __
_______________________________________________ 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 Alan, Steve is not only a highly expert in technical matter and management but is also a diplomat. Please kindly read ihis comments without any attempt to decomposite it. I do not believe Steve make such decomposite action Regards Kavouss 2016-02-19 19:32 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>:
In that case we miss all our timelines and might as well just throw everything that we have worked for out the window. This is a tactic, and one which we must reject and move forward as planned.
-jg
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: Friday 19 February 2016 at 6:30 p.m. To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>, " accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
Dear All, Have we ever received a consensus objection or some form of wholesome proposal reflecting the full breath of membership of the other constituencies I think we need to reflect and forward correctly . Who knows till end of ICANN 55 howmany objections will be tableed? Regards Kavouss
2016-02-19 19:23 GMT+01:00 Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>:
I feel like I’m in the movie Ground Hog Day and every day is a 1 am ICANN call.
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 1:17 PM *To:* Phil Corwin *Cc:* Thomas Rickert; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
Dear All,
There is big difference between providing the rights for GAC as decisional making entity and to exercise those rights
GAC has not decided on whether they wish to exercise that right or not,
Supermajority and reconsideration of rejected Recommendation of other constituencies and rejection of GAC Advice should have the same threshold
If ONE GETS THE BENEF OF 2/3 MAJORITY the other should ALSO have the same. BENEFIT
If GAC advice could be rejected by the Board with simple Majority the Recommendation of other entities SHOULD also be rejected by simple majority.
If the Board gets into negotiation with GAC after it has rejected its advice, they also get into negotiation with other constituencies if their Recommendations were rejected .
Currently there is a full imbalance between the PDP Recommendations treatments and GAC advice
The PDP Recommendations developed by supermajority in some constituencies or by so-called SOFT CONSENSUS could only be rejected by the Board with 2/3 MAJORITY BUT GAC advice ,normally decided by consensus could only be rejected by SIMPLE MAJORITY
This is unfair.
However, after rejection with such an imbalance criteria both cases could be negotiated by Board and the two constituencies.
I do not agree with the argument submitted with the risk that those people submitting such argument may disserve the ethic of correspondence and going out of the limit and not observing mutual respect
Kavouss
2016-02-19 18:51 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>:
Greg:
Assuming that the new Board position is indeed a response to a minority position of a few GAC members, I am in full agreement that it “should serve as a warning to us all”.
Indeed, it emphasizes exactly why the GAC should not be able to block the community’s ability to hold the Board accountable for implementing GAC consensus advice that the community feels is outside the scope of the Bylaws or Mission Statement.
Best. Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <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 *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Thomas Rickert *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
It is alarming that a few GAC members could seek to undo a carefully balanced compromise. And even more alarming that those few GAC members could so quickly trigger a Board intervention.
The carve-out is balanced against the concerns of other stakeholders with regard to (i) the proposed supermajority threshold for Board rejection of GAC advice and (ii) the GAC's overall role as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community, rather than its traditional advisory capacity. The carve-out itself underwent a compromise, requiring the Community to go through an IRP before exercising the power of Board recall.
When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well.
Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out?
I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all.
Greg
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message
Regards
Kavouss
2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Co-chairs
You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon.
This is an ALARMING SITUATION ,
If there is no consensus means there is no consensus ,
We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one.
Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such
If a mistake has occurred we should repair it .
Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator .
THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL
Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls
Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that.
You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon
Regards
Kavouss
------------------------------ BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org
_______________________________________________ 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: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
I don't think we need to resort to warning each other. (Recursive irony intended). On 19/02/16 17:22, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message Regards Kavouss
2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
Dear Co-chairs You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon. This is an ALARMING SITUATION , If there is no consensus means there is no consensus , We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one. Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such If a mistake has occurred we should repair it . Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator . THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that. You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon Regards Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (11)
-
Christopher Wilkinson -
epilisse＠gmail.com -
Greg Shatan -
James Gannon -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Nigel Roberts -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Phil Corwin -
Salaets, Ken -
Schaefer, Brett -
Seun Ojedeji