Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion: " Burr Proposal: ? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23. The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community's consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board's implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board's unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community's power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws." However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN's Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky's initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today's call. Best regards, Finn and Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss' email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus! 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community's consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board's implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board's unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community's power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board's implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) * Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption "as is" (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: <no subject> Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings, I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community. We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11 We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together. However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection. We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability. Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed . The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical 1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm's requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it. Package Deal 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community's consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board's implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board's unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community's power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board's implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) · Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; · Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and · Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption "as is" (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). Kavouss
Dear Julia Thanks for reply That does not cause any problem to me to consider the Beckie,s initial proposal. However, is good that you are willing to consider the package that I sent out on 03Feb. We could discuss the point raised provided that we all just work on package in question Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 4 Feb 2016, at 10:34, Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
“ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.”
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN’s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky’s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today’s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss’ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm’s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss
Dear all I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday. A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it. This change in Becky's initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant. Regards Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion: " Burr Proposal: ? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23. The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community's consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board's implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board's unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community's power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws." However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN's Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky's initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today's call. Best regards, Finn and Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss' email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus! 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community's consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board's implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board's unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community's power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board's implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) * Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption "as is" (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: <no subject> Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings, I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community. We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11 We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together. However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection. We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability. Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed . The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical 1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm's requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it. Package Deal 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community's consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board's implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board's unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community's power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board's implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) · Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; · Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and · Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption "as is" (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). Kavouss
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky’s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
“ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.”
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN’s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky’s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today’s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss’ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm’s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Kavouss In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations. Regards Jorge Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk> <jukacz@erst.dk>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear all I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday. A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it. This change in Becky’s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant. Regards Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion: “ Burr Proposal: ? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23. The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.” However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN’s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky’s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today’s call. Best regards, Finn and Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss’ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus! 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) * Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: <no subject> Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings, I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community. We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11 We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together. However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection. We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability. Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed . The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical 1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm’s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it. Package Deal 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) · Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; · Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and · Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk> <jukacz@erst.dk>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky’s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
“ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.”
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN’s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky’s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today’s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss’ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm’s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged): == Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing I have a proposal for discussion. Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s Mission. I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold. Just a thought - === Regards Jorge Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk> <jukacz@erst.dk>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Kavouss In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations. Regards Jorge Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear all I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday. A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it. This change in Becky’s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant. Regards Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion: “ Burr Proposal: ? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23. The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.” However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN’s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky’s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today’s call. Best regards, Finn and Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss’ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus! 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) * Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: <no subject> Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings, I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community. We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11 We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together. However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection. We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability. Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed . The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical 1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm’s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it. Package Deal 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) · Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; · Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and · Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk> <jukacz@erst.dk>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk> <jukacz@erst.dk>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky’s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
“ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.”
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN’s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky’s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today’s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss’ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm’s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Kavouss, Becky responded to this yesterday: Julia – I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this. I expect she will follow up soon. Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP. I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday. If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it. Best, Brett On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged): == Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing I have a proposal for discussion. Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s Mission. I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold. Just a thought - === Regards Jorge ________________________________ 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/> Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Kavouss In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations. Regards Jorge Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear all I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday. A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it. This change in Becky’s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant. Regards Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion: “ Burr Proposal: ? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23. The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.” However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN’s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky’s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today’s call. Best regards, Finn and Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss’ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus! 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) * Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: <no subject> Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings, I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community. We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11 We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together. However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection. We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability. Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed . The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical 1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm’s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it. Package Deal 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) · Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; · Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and · Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia – I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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/> Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky’s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
“ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.”
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN’s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky’s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today’s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss’ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm’s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Olga, There was a sense of the room, temperature taking, green versus red ticks, whatever you want to call it. That is why I put "vote" in quotes. Best, Brett __________ On Feb 5, 2016, at 7:14 AM, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote: Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia – I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: 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] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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><http://heritage.org/> Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky’s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: 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] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
“ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.”
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN’s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky’s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today’s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk><http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>>
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss’ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm’s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss
________________________________ 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><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz> On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cr oss-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097
heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage .org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGNu 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cr oss-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>
www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWw WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cr oss-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXY oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
What about your following sentence:? In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s Mission. seems clear that it refers the carve-out to the community IRP best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 05.02.2016 um 16:54 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>: Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz> On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote: Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> escribió: Kavouss, Becky responded to this yesterday: Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this. I expect she will follow up soon. Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP. I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday. If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it. Best, Brett On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged): == Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing I have a proposal for discussion. Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission. I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold. Just a thought - === Regards Jorge ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage .org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGNu 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Kavouss In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations. Regards Jorge Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear all I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday. A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it. This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant. Regards Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion: ³ Burr Proposal: ? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23. The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.² However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call. Best regards, Finn and Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWw WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= > MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus! 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) * Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz> From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: <no subject> Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings, I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community. We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11 We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together. However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection. We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability. Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed . The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical 1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it. Package Deal 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) · Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; · Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and · Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e= _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e= _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXY oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e= _______________________________________________ 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
That does not limit the preceding more general statement of principle that says the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board’s implement. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz> On 2/5/16, 11:03 AM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
What about your following sentence:?
In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s Mission.
seems clear that it refers the carve-out to the community IRP
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 16:54 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>:
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavous s.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatan ipc@gmail.com>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-commu nity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097
heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage. org&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP 8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdCMQmeKyfvfgKztN_5hTNBQ&s=FDOmkRL9aMpNQpU6 GLyFoxSd_SrpW5QS_fiz3xNHU-E&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage .org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGNu 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@n eustar.biz>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> ; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weil l@afnic.fr>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@san chez.mx>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch><m ailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>
www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3 A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm 6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdCMQmeKyfvfgKztN_5 hTNBQ&s=vg2MZzQiAfSCjAitWGLmeRUMzh0veJqwc1AviznVzWs&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWw WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-commu nity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavous s.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@n eustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weil l@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@san chez.mx>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXY oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdC MQmeKyfvfgKztN_5hTNBQ&s=VTk9IqV37-xLyMJG8fHErifAzzYMBIZoGD-_IRZR5oA&e=
Dear Becky it seems that then we could not agree, as your proposal would exclude the GAC from the community mechanism in any issue which may be relevant to the GAC. This is clearly contrary to the equal footing participation of all SO/AC we have agreed a long time ago. best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 17:05 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>:
That does not limit the preceding more general statement of principle that says the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board’s implement.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 11:03 AM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
What about your following sentence:?
In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s Mission.
seems clear that it refers the carve-out to the community IRP
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 16:54 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>:
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavous s.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatan ipc@gmail.com>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-commu nity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097
heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage. org&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP 8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdCMQmeKyfvfgKztN_5hTNBQ&s=FDOmkRL9aMpNQpU6 GLyFoxSd_SrpW5QS_fiz3xNHU-E&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage .org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGNu 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@n eustar.biz>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> ; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weil l@afnic.fr>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@san chez.mx>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch><m ailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>
www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3 A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm 6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdCMQmeKyfvfgKztN_5 hTNBQ&s=vg2MZzQiAfSCjAitWGLmeRUMzh0veJqwc1AviznVzWs&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWw WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-commu nity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavous s.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@n eustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weil l@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@san chez.mx>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXY oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdC MQmeKyfvfgKztN_5hTNBQ&s=VTk9IqV37-xLyMJG8fHErifAzzYMBIZoGD-_IRZR5oA&e=
NO! The GAC’s role would be limited only where the exercise of community power is challenging the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice! That leaves PLENTY of room for GAC participation - as a decision maker - in matters that have public policy implications. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz> On 2/5/16, 11:09 AM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Becky
it seems that then we could not agree, as your proposal would exclude the GAC from the community mechanism in any issue which may be relevant to the GAC.
This is clearly contrary to the equal footing participation of all SO/AC we have agreed a long time ago.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 17:05 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>:
That does not limit the preceding more general statement of principle that says the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board’s implement.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 11:03 AM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
What about your following sentence:?
In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s Mission.
seems clear that it refers the carve-out to the community IRP
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 16:54 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>:
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavo us s.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c ro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan
<gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshat an ipc@gmail.com>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc:
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com mu nity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097
heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritag e.
org&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYah OP
8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdCMQmeKyfvfgKztN_5hTNBQ&s=FDOmkRL9aMpNQp U6 GLyFoxSd_SrpW5QS_fiz3xNHU-E&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage
.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdY a
hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGN u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr
<Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr @n eustar.biz>>; Thomas Rickert
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net
; Mathieu Weill
<Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.We il l@afnic.fr>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@s an chez.mx>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM
<Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> <m ailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c ro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability'
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>
www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http -3
A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm
6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdCMQmeKyfvfgKztN _5 hTNBQ&s=vg2MZzQiAfSCjAitWGLmeRUMzh0veJqwc1AviznVzWs&e=
3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOi f
zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PW w WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c ro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com mu nity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavo us s.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr
<becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr @n eustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill
<Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.We il l@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net
, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@s an chez.mx>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm a
n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL C
_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozb e
OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZ XY oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwx dC MQmeKyfvfgKztN_5hTNBQ&s=VTk9IqV37-xLyMJG8fHErifAzzYMBIZoGD-_IRZR5oA&e=
This is clear to me. Regards, Keith -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 11:13 AM To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org; thomas@rickert.net Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Importance: High NO! The GAC’s role would be limited only where the exercise of community power is challenging the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice! That leaves PLENTY of room for GAC participation - as a decision maker - in matters that have public policy implications. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz> On 2/5/16, 11:09 AM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Becky
it seems that then we could not agree, as your proposal would exclude the GAC from the community mechanism in any issue which may be relevant to the GAC.
This is clearly contrary to the equal footing participation of all SO/AC we have agreed a long time ago.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 17:05 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>:
That does not limit the preceding more general statement of principle that says the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board’s implement.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 11:03 AM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
What about your following sentence:?
In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s Mission.
seems clear that it refers the carve-out to the community IRP
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 16:54 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>:
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavo us s.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c ro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan
<gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshat an ipc@gmail.com>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc:
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com mu nity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097
heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritag e.
org&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYah OP
8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdCMQmeKyfvfgKztN_5hTNBQ&s=FDOmkRL9aMpNQp U6 GLyFoxSd_SrpW5QS_fiz3xNHU-E&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage
.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdY a
hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGN u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr
<Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr @n eustar.biz>>; Thomas Rickert
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net
; Mathieu Weill
<Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.We il l@afnic.fr>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@s an chez.mx>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM
<Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> <m ailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c ro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability'
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>
www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http -3
A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm
6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdCMQmeKyfvfgKztN _5 hTNBQ&s=vg2MZzQiAfSCjAitWGLmeRUMzh0veJqwc1AviznVzWs&e=
3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOi f
zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PW w WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c ro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com mu nity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavo us s.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr
<becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr @n eustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill
<Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.We il l@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net
, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@s an chez.mx>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm a
n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL C
_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozb e
OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZ XY oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwx dC MQmeKyfvfgKztN_5hTNBQ&s=VTk9IqV37-xLyMJG8fHErifAzzYMBIZoGD-_IRZR5oA&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Likewise. Matthew On 05/02/2016 08:18, Drazek, Keith wrote:
This is clear to me.
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 11:13 AM To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org; thomas@rickert.net Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Importance: High
NO! The GAC’s role would be limited only where the exercise of community power is challenging the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice! That leaves PLENTY of room for GAC participation - as a decision maker - in matters that have public policy implications.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 11:09 AM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Becky
it seems that then we could not agree, as your proposal would exclude the GAC from the community mechanism in any issue which may be relevant to the GAC.
This is clearly contrary to the equal footing participation of all SO/AC we have agreed a long time ago.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 17:05 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>:
That does not limit the preceding more general statement of principle that says the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board’s implement.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 11:03 AM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
What about your following sentence:?
In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s Mission.
seems clear that it refers the carve-out to the community IRP
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 16:54 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>:
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavo us s.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c ro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan
<gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshat an ipc@gmail.com>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc:
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com mu nity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097
heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritag e.
org&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYah OP
8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdCMQmeKyfvfgKztN_5hTNBQ&s=FDOmkRL9aMpNQp U6 GLyFoxSd_SrpW5QS_fiz3xNHU-E&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage .org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdY a
hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGN u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr
<Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr @n eustar.biz>>; Thomas Rickert
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net ; Mathieu Weill
<Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.We il l@afnic.fr>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@s an chez.mx>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM
<Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> <m ailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c ro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability'
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>
www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http -3
A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm
6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdCMQmeKyfvfgKztN _5 hTNBQ&s=vg2MZzQiAfSCjAitWGLmeRUMzh0veJqwc1AviznVzWs&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOi f
zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PW w WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c ro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com mu nity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavo us s.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr
<becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr @n eustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill
<Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.We il l@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@s an chez.mx>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm a
n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL C
_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozb e
OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZ XY oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwx dC MQmeKyfvfgKztN_5hTNBQ&s=VTk9IqV37-xLyMJG8fHErifAzzYMBIZoGD-_IRZR5oA&e=
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
-- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Agree, seems very clear, and it is an important element to address remaining concerns associated with raising the rejection threshold to 60%. Thanks— J. On 2/5/16, 10:18 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Drazek, Keith" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
This is clear to me.
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 11:13 AM To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org; thomas@rickert.net Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Importance: High
NO! The GAC’s role would be limited only where the exercise of community power is challenging the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice! That leaves PLENTY of room for GAC participation - as a decision maker - in matters that have public policy implications.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 11:09 AM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Becky
it seems that then we could not agree, as your proposal would exclude the GAC from the community mechanism in any issue which may be relevant to the GAC.
This is clearly contrary to the equal footing participation of all SO/AC we have agreed a long time ago.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 17:05 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>:
That does not limit the preceding more general statement of principle that says the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board’s implement.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 11:03 AM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
What about your following sentence:?
In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s Mission.
seems clear that it refers the carve-out to the community IRP
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 16:54 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>:
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kav o us s.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto : Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto : Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability- c ro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan
<gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregsha t an ipc@gmail.com>>; Mueller, Milton L
<milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc:
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co m mu nity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097
heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__herita g e.
org&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa h OP
8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdCMQmeKyfvfgKztN_5hTNBQ&s=FDOmkRL9aMpNQ p U6 GLyFoxSd_SrpW5QS_fiz3xNHU-E&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage
.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxd Y a
hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mG N u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto : Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c o mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c o mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr
<Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Bur r @n eustar.biz>>; Thomas Rickert
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.ne t
; Mathieu Weill
<Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.W e il l@afnic.fr>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@ s an chez.mx>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM
<Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch
<m ailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto : Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto : Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto : Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c o mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c o mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto : Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto : Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability- c ro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability'
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c o mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>
www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=htt p -3
A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOi f zm
6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdCMQmeKyfvfgKzt N _5 hTNBQ&s=vg2MZzQiAfSCjAitWGLmeRUMzh0veJqwc1AviznVzWs&e=
3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFO i f
zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1P W w WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability- c ro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co m mu nity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kav o us s.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c o mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr
<becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.bur r @n eustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill
<Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.W e il l@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.ne t
, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@ s an chez.mx>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co m mu nity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm a n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL C _
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozb e O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e =
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail m a
n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA L C
_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hoz b e
OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M & e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co m mu nity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm a n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL C _
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozb e O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co m mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm a n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL C _
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozb e O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co m mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm a n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO Z XY oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co m mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm a n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXw x dC MQmeKyfvfgKztN_5hTNBQ&s=VTk9IqV37-xLyMJG8fHErifAzzYMBIZoGD-_IRZR5oA&e=
_______________________________________________ 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
Of course it is clear. The remaining minority of GAC members are simply trying to create ambiguity where it does not exist so as to avoid the result they oppose.... 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 -----Original Message----- From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 11:21 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>; Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Cc: thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Agree, seems very clear, and it is an important element to address remaining concerns associated with raising the rejection threshold to 60%. Thanks— J. On 2/5/16, 10:18 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Drazek, Keith" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
This is clear to me.
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 11:13 AM To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org; thomas@rickert.net Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Importance: High
NO! The GAC’s role would be limited only where the exercise of community power is challenging the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice! That leaves PLENTY of room for GAC participation - as a decision maker - in matters that have public policy implications.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 11:09 AM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Becky
it seems that then we could not agree, as your proposal would exclude the GAC from the community mechanism in any issue which may be relevant to the GAC.
This is clearly contrary to the equal footing participation of all SO/AC we have agreed a long time ago.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 17:05 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>:
That does not limit the preceding more general statement of principle that says the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board’s implement.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 11:03 AM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
What about your following sentence:?
In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s Mission.
seems clear that it refers the carve-out to the community IRP
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 16:54 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>:
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto: kav o us s.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mai lto : Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mai lto : Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabili ty- c ro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.o rg>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan
<gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:greg sha t an ipc@gmail.com>>; Mueller, Milton L
<milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.ed u>> Cc:
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -co m mu nity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097
heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__her ita g e.
org&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrx dYa h OP
8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdCMQmeKyfvfgKztN_5hTNBQ&s=FDOmkRL9aM pNQ p U6 GLyFoxSd_SrpW5QS_fiz3xNHU-E&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage
.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDm rxd Y a
hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ 2mG N u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mai lto : Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros s-c o mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros s-c o mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr
<Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky. Bur r @n eustar.biz>>; Thomas Rickert
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert .ne t
; Mathieu Weill
<Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathie u.W e il l@afnic.fr>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli pe@ s an chez.mx>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM
<Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin .ch
<m ailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mai lto : Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mai lto : Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mai lto : Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros s-c o mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros s-c o mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mai lto : Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mai lto : Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabili ty- c ro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.o rg>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability'
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros s-c o mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>
www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u= htt p -3
A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJ FOi f zm
6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdCMQmeKyfvfg Kzt N _5 hTNBQ&s=vg2MZzQiAfSCjAitWGLmeRUMzh0veJqwc1AviznVzWs&e=
3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62c JFO i f
zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSU B1P W w WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabili ty- c ro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.o rg>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -co m mu nity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto: kav o us s.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros s-c o mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr
<becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky. bur r @n eustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill
<Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathie u.W e il l@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert .ne t
, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli pe@ s an chez.mx>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross -Co m mu nity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma ilm a n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETe DAL C _
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2H ozb e O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC 7M& e =
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ail m a
n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eDA L C
_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Hoz b e
OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7M & e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross -Co m mu nity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma ilm a n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETe DAL C _
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2H ozb e O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC 7M& e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross -Co m mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma ilm a n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETe DAL C _
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2H ozb e O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC 7M& e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross -Co m mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma ilm a n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC _ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hoz beO Z XY
oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross -Co m mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma ilm a n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC _ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5G lXw x dC
MQmeKyfvfgKztN_5hTNBQ&s=VTk9IqV37-xLyMJG8fHErifAzzYMBIZoGD-_IRZR5oA& e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Becky Community powers are designed to challenge Board decisions. Any Board decision with public policy implications will (inter alia) and almost always have considered a GAC advice on such an issue. Hence, with your overbroad and -as we have said from the start- discriminatory carve out/exclusion, the GAC would be excluded from any community decisions precisely when public policy issues are at stake. To the contrary, your initial wording of referring this carve out only to community IRP ("in other words" is NOT and example or an open list, but a description of the case one is proposing) is perhaps reasonable and could be considered, as an independent third party (the IRP) would decide whether a Board decision implementing a GAC advice is not consistent with the Bylaws. Let's return to that case and have a sensible discussion. best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 17:12 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>:
NO! The GAC’s role would be limited only where the exercise of community power is challenging the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice! That leaves PLENTY of room for GAC participation - as a decision maker - in matters that have public policy implications.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 11:09 AM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Becky
it seems that then we could not agree, as your proposal would exclude the GAC from the community mechanism in any issue which may be relevant to the GAC.
This is clearly contrary to the equal footing participation of all SO/AC we have agreed a long time ago.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 17:05 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>:
That does not limit the preceding more general statement of principle that says the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board’s implement.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 11:03 AM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
What about your following sentence:?
In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s Mission.
seems clear that it refers the carve-out to the community IRP
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 16:54 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>:
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavo us s.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c ro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan
<gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshat an ipc@gmail.com>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc:
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com mu nity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097
heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritag e.
org&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYah OP
8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdCMQmeKyfvfgKztN_5hTNBQ&s=FDOmkRL9aMpNQp U6 GLyFoxSd_SrpW5QS_fiz3xNHU-E&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage
.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdY a
hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGN u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr
<Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr @n eustar.biz>>; Thomas Rickert
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net ; Mathieu Weill
<Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.We il l@afnic.fr>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@s an chez.mx>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM
<Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> <m ailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c ro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability'
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>
www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http -3
A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm
6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdCMQmeKyfvfgKztN _5 hTNBQ&s=vg2MZzQiAfSCjAitWGLmeRUMzh0veJqwc1AviznVzWs&e=
3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOi f
zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PW w WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c ro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com mu nity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavo us s.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr
<becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr @n eustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill
<Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.We il l@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@s an chez.mx>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm a
n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL C
_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozb e
OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZ XY oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwx dC MQmeKyfvfgKztN_5hTNBQ&s=VTk9IqV37-xLyMJG8fHErifAzzYMBIZoGD-_IRZR5oA&e=
Hi, I preface this by noting that I'm not a member of the CCWG. On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 04:20:11PM +0000, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Any Board decision with public policy implications will (inter alia) and almost always have considered a GAC advice on such an issue.
Hence, with your overbroad and -as we have said from the start- discriminatory carve out/exclusion, the GAC would be excluded from any community decisions precisely when public policy issues are at stake.
In my opinion, the above characterisation appears not to acknowledging the GAC's agency. The point of the carve-out is to give the GAC a choice. It can issue advice, in the special meaning of that word for the purposes of the board's deliberations. In that case, the board needs a supermajority to take the decision not to follow the GAC advice. By implication, therefore, in the absence of the supermajority the board needs to accept the GAC advice and implement it. In order for the rest of the community to be ok with that arrangement, the rest of the community wants to ensure that the GAC can't also try to force re-consideration of the same advice in case the board does reject the advice by supermajority. The GAC has another choice, though, with respect to any decision with public policy implications. The GAC could decline to issue "advice" with the special meaning above, and instead (say) issue a position that does have GAC consensus but that is not issued as formal advice to the board. In that case, the 60% threshold wouldn't be invoked, but the GAC would retain the freedom to act within the Empowered Community framework. (I think it obvious that any actual board would take into consideration such a "non-advice" position; I hope we won't have to debate probabilistic statements about future possible states of affairs.) In other words, the current "package deal" proposal actually gives the GAC a new option for action. But it does so on the condition that the GAC work in the way other ACs will also work. I think that's an entirely reasonable thing to require, and the GAC _still_ has the freedom to opt out of that by issuing the formal advice that causes the supermajority rule to apply instead. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Dear Andrew such a obligation to chose (only for the GAC) was never in any CCWG draft report. It is inconsistent with the multistakeholder model and the principle of equal footing. best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 17:57 schrieb Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>:
Hi,
I preface this by noting that I'm not a member of the CCWG.
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 04:20:11PM +0000, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Any Board decision with public policy implications will (inter alia) and almost always have considered a GAC advice on such an issue.
Hence, with your overbroad and -as we have said from the start- discriminatory carve out/exclusion, the GAC would be excluded from any community decisions precisely when public policy issues are at stake.
In my opinion, the above characterisation appears not to acknowledging the GAC's agency.
The point of the carve-out is to give the GAC a choice. It can issue advice, in the special meaning of that word for the purposes of the board's deliberations. In that case, the board needs a supermajority to take the decision not to follow the GAC advice. By implication, therefore, in the absence of the supermajority the board needs to accept the GAC advice and implement it. In order for the rest of the community to be ok with that arrangement, the rest of the community wants to ensure that the GAC can't also try to force re-consideration of the same advice in case the board does reject the advice by supermajority.
The GAC has another choice, though, with respect to any decision with public policy implications. The GAC could decline to issue "advice" with the special meaning above, and instead (say) issue a position that does have GAC consensus but that is not issued as formal advice to the board. In that case, the 60% threshold wouldn't be invoked, but the GAC would retain the freedom to act within the Empowered Community framework. (I think it obvious that any actual board would take into consideration such a "non-advice" position; I hope we won't have to debate probabilistic statements about future possible states of affairs.)
In other words, the current "package deal" proposal actually gives the GAC a new option for action. But it does so on the condition that the GAC work in the way other ACs will also work. I think that's an entirely reasonable thing to require, and the GAC _still_ has the freedom to opt out of that by issuing the formal advice that causes the supermajority rule to apply instead.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Jorge, On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 05:03:15PM +0000, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
such a obligation to chose (only for the GAC) was never in any CCWG draft report.
Of course this has not appeard in any previous draft report. It is a clever new compromise that's being proposed to address previous apparently irreconcilable goals. If we restrict ourselves strictly only to what has appeared in any of the previous drafts, we will be unable to find the compromise necessary to deliver the CCWG-Accountability's task. That would, I think, be fatal to the IANA transition. It also, I think, would in the long run desperately weaken ICANN. I don't see how any of that is a winning strategy, so I think finding a way to compromise is needed.
It is inconsistent with the multistakeholder model and the principle of equal footing.
I don't see how. The GAC has always behaved differently than other stakeholder constituencies in ICANN, and the proposal formalises that role. It allows GAC to have a choice: behave like everyone else, and then participate in the equal footing you call out; or else behave in a way different to other constituency groups, and then be treated differently too. The analogy you have drawn with the *NSO is not apt, for two reasons. First, the NSOs (and particularly the GNSO) members have direct operational stake in the outcome of PDPs. Second, PDPs have a great deal of process associated with them before they render decisions, and that process includes a lot of public consultation. The same is not true of GAC advice. A more apt analogy to the GAC would be other ACs, and it seems to me that those ACs already labour under the same rules as the GAC would in case it decided not to take the "formal GAC advice" path. That really does follow the principle of equal footing. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Dear Andrew I agree with you completely. I'm not sure, though, why you bother (except to create a record, I guess). There have been, by my count, more than a dozen substantive emails (Mike C; Becky; Keith; Ed M; you) that outline the very real differences between the NSO processes (and particularly the PDP process) and the way in which GAC advice is developed (to the extent we know it, since the GAC is not very transparent). There have, likewise, been a similar number of emails pointing out that the GAC's privileged position with the Board in compelled negotiation is unique to the GAC and that a concomitant check on the GAC's ability to forestall the remainder of the community is appropriate and necessary. Yet nobody from the GAC has ever suggested that perhaps the way to solve their problem with the "carve out" is to give up their ability to compel the Board to negotiate. We have, in fact, repeated these points ad infinitum. It isn't that the minority of GAC members who are vocally opposing this on the list don't =really= understand or appreciate these distinctions. Of course they do. They are all very intelligent and thoughtful diplomats who represent their country's interests ably. It is simply that they (or more accurately, their political masters) disagree with the result, want more governmental power, and are attempting to avoid it by obfuscation and by erecting artificial, non-existent procedural hurdles. Paul 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 -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 12:58 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Jorge, On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 05:03:15PM +0000, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
such a obligation to chose (only for the GAC) was never in any CCWG draft
report. Of course this has not appeard in any previous draft report. It is a clever new compromise that's being proposed to address previous apparently irreconcilable goals. If we restrict ourselves strictly only to what has appeared in any of the previous drafts, we will be unable to find the compromise necessary to deliver the CCWG-Accountability's task. That would, I think, be fatal to the IANA transition. It also, I think, would in the long run desperately weaken ICANN. I don't see how any of that is a winning strategy, so I think finding a way to compromise is needed.
It is inconsistent with the multistakeholder model and the principle of equal footing.
I don't see how. The GAC has always behaved differently than other stakeholder constituencies in ICANN, and the proposal formalises that role. It allows GAC to have a choice: behave like everyone else, and then participate in the equal footing you call out; or else behave in a way different to other constituency groups, and then be treated differently too. The analogy you have drawn with the *NSO is not apt, for two reasons. First, the NSOs (and particularly the GNSO) members have direct operational stake in the outcome of PDPs. Second, PDPs have a great deal of process associated with them before they render decisions, and that process includes a lot of public consultation. The same is not true of GAC advice. A more apt analogy to the GAC would be other ACs, and it seems to me that those ACs already labour under the same rules as the GAC would in case it decided not to take the "formal GAC advice" path. That really does follow the principle of equal footing. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Well put Paul.
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:19, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Dear Andrew
I agree with you completely. I'm not sure, though, why you bother (except to create a record, I guess). There have been, by my count, more than a dozen substantive emails (Mike C; Becky; Keith; Ed M; you) that outline the very real differences between the NSO processes (and particularly the PDP process) and the way in which GAC advice is developed (to the extent we know it, since the GAC is not very transparent).
There have, likewise, been a similar number of emails pointing out that the GAC's privileged position with the Board in compelled negotiation is unique to the GAC and that a concomitant check on the GAC's ability to forestall the remainder of the community is appropriate and necessary. Yet nobody from the GAC has ever suggested that perhaps the way to solve their problem with the "carve out" is to give up their ability to compel the Board to negotiate.
We have, in fact, repeated these points ad infinitum. It isn't that the minority of GAC members who are vocally opposing this on the list don't =really= understand or appreciate these distinctions. Of course they do. They are all very intelligent and thoughtful diplomats who represent their country's interests ably. It is simply that they (or more accurately, their political masters) disagree with the result, want more governmental power, and are attempting to avoid it by obfuscation and by erecting artificial, non-existent procedural hurdles.
Paul
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
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 12:58 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Jorge,
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 05:03:15PM +0000, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
such a obligation to chose (only for the GAC) was never in any CCWG draft report.
Of course this has not appeard in any previous draft report. It is a clever new compromise that's being proposed to address previous apparently irreconcilable goals. If we restrict ourselves strictly only to what has appeared in any of the previous drafts, we will be unable to find the compromise necessary to deliver the CCWG-Accountability's task. That would, I think, be fatal to the IANA transition. It also, I think, would in the long run desperately weaken ICANN. I don't see how any of that is a winning strategy, so I think finding a way to compromise is needed.
It is inconsistent with the multistakeholder model and the principle of equal footing.
I don't see how. The GAC has always behaved differently than other stakeholder constituencies in ICANN, and the proposal formalises that role. It allows GAC to have a choice: behave like everyone else, and then participate in the equal footing you call out; or else behave in a way different to other constituency groups, and then be treated differently too.
The analogy you have drawn with the *NSO is not apt, for two reasons. First, the NSOs (and particularly the GNSO) members have direct operational stake in the outcome of PDPs. Second, PDPs have a great deal of process associated with them before they render decisions, and that process includes a lot of public consultation. The same is not true of GAC advice. A more apt analogy to the GAC would be other ACs, and it seems to me that those ACs already labour under the same rules as the GAC would in case it decided not to take the "formal GAC advice" path. That really does follow the principle of equal footing.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on. Paul 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 -----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net> <thomas@rickert.net>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz> On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cr oss-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097
heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage .org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGNu 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cr oss-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>
www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWw WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cr oss-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXY oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Paul I am not i favour of Vote this is why I proposed 60% instead of 2/3 (Rec. 11) and Beckie proposed another element which relates to Rec.1 Pls let us not to VOTE KAVOUSD Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 17:23, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
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
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net> <thomas@rickert.net>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cr oss-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097
heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage .org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGNu 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cr oss-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>
www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWw WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cr oss-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXY oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi Paul, You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here. I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible. As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC. I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following: 1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP) I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it) Regards On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
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
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net> <thomas@rickert.net>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cr oss-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097
heritage.org< https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage .org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGNu 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch
Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cr oss-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>
www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk< https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk &d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWw WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cr oss-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto: Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
< https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto: Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXY oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ 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
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days. Regards, Keith Sent from my iPhone On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Paul, You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here. I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible. As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC. I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following: 1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP) I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it) Regards On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> <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] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz> On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability-cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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
http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGNu 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWw WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability-cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXY oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>: The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days. Regards, Keith Sent from my iPhone On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Paul, You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here. I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible. As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC. I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following: 1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP) I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it) Regards On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> <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] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz> On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability-cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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
http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGNu 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWw WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability-cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXY oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello Jorge - Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC? Thanks— J. On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc onsulting.com>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchco nsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavo uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accounta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshat anipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<ma ilto:milton@gatech.edu>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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
http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8T jDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGN u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka cz@erst.dk>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka cz@erst.dk>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr @neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.We ill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@s anchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.ad min.ch>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka cz@erst.dk>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka cz@erst.dk>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accounta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukac z@erst.dk>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url ?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d=CwIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PW w WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accounta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavo uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr @neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.We ill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@s anchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm a n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL C _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozb e OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com munity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_l U Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZX Y oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@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 James I'm talking as a ccwg participant, who has worked for finding compromise and consensus numerous times. This is my personal assesment. You may consider its merits or ignore it. But excluding the GAC was always a bad idea, is short-sighted and won't help ICANN - my view... regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:08 schrieb James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>:
Hello Jorge -
Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC?
Thanks—
J.
On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc onsulting.com>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchco nsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavo uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accounta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshat anipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<ma ilto:milton@gatech.edu>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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
http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8T jDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGN u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka cz@erst.dk>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka cz@erst.dk>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr @neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.We ill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@s anchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.ad min.ch>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka cz@erst.dk>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka cz@erst.dk>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accounta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukac z@erst.dk>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url ?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d=CwIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PW w WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accounta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavo uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr @neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.We ill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@s anchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm a n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL C _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozb e OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com munity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_l U Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZX Y oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@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
It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either. Best Rafael Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos. -------- Original message -------- From: "James M. Bladel" Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00) To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch, kdrazek@verisign.com Cc: thomas@rickert.net, accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Hello Jorge - Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC? Thanks— J. On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc onsulting.com>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchco nsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavo uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accounta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshat anipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<ma ilto:milton@gatech.edu>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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
http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8T jDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGN u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka cz@erst.dk>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka cz@erst.dk>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr @neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.We ill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@s anchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.ad min.ch>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka cz@erst.dk>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka cz@erst.dk>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accounta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukac z@erst.dk>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url ?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d=CwIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PW w WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accounta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavo uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr @neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.We ill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@s anchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm a n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL C _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozb e OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com munity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_l U Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZX Y oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
It is an enormous overstatement to say that this would preclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases. The GAC can participate in all discussions, debates, considerations, etc. In a limited number of situations involving GAC Advice (and we know precisely what that is from the scorecards, etc.), the GAC would not be permitted to participate as a decision maker. Keep in mind, we haven’t even really been told if the GAC wants to participate as a decision maker in the first place. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: "<Perez Galindo>", Rafael <RPEREZGA@minetur.es<mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>> Date: Friday, February 5, 2016 at 12:53 PM To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Cc: "thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>" <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either. Best Rafael Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos. -------- Original message -------- From: "James M. Bladel" Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00) To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Hello Jorge - Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC? Thanks— J. On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com><mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com><mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc onsulting.com>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com><mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchco nsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavo uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-c ross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accounta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshat anipc@gmail.com<mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<ma ilto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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
http://heritage.org<<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org-26lt-3B&d=CwQF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=1bY7pJ1eVwVE3lTyis-k26WvheQQAP0q2-i6pBpz0k4&s=9E_NKkEXue00p1w50fTL-b2KW4jVSR4duDppZ9QOXHo&e=>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8T<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__-26gt-3B-26gt-3B.org-5F-26d-3DCwIGaQ-26c-3DMOptNlVtIETeDALC-5FlULrw-26r-3D62cJFOifzm6X-5FGRlaq8Mo8T&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=1bY7pJ1eVwVE3lTyis-k26WvheQQAP0q2-i6pBpz0k4&s=xwKODPJMNcMeVuP0WZLP3YZc2WDFBPz7PigoSxwiNbE&e=> jDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGN u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr @neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.We ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@s anchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.ad min.ch>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-c ross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accounta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukac z@erst.dk<mailto:z@erst.dk>>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk-26lt-3Bhttps-3A__urldefense.proofpoint.com_v2_url&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=1bY7pJ1eVwVE3lTyis-k26WvheQQAP0q2-i6pBpz0k4&s=4_Ck57aSZJETIAL2zPugQlxW9tOP1cqizlEjkzjz83s&e=> ?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d=CwIG<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__3A-5F-5Fwww.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk-26gt-3B-26amp-3Bd-3DCwIG&d=CwQF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=1bY7pJ1eVwVE3lTyis-k26WvheQQAP0q2-i6pBpz0k4&s=TqbGbjnIOtmj5l7o7QkzNQl8xTmky5a2-kfPsFkZvYk&e=> aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PW w WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-c ross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accounta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz-26gt-3B-26lt-3Bhttp-3A__www.neustar.biz&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=1bY7pJ1eVwVE3lTyis-k26WvheQQAP0q2-i6pBpz0k4&s=rdgLxZ8PhuGWsw8OvpgxWAb9-vlR5UIOuSJZndE3j0M&e=>>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavo uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr @neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.We ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@s anchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm a n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL C _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozb e OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_l U Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZX Y oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=1bY7pJ1eVwVE3lTyis-k26WvheQQAP0q2-i6pBpz0k4&s=Vr4YKyexqu6BmwmD38xKGvFwLMrQXusrZ2Ndt38_JWs&e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=1bY7pJ1eVwVE3lTyis-k26WvheQQAP0q2-i6pBpz0k4&s=Vr4YKyexqu6BmwmD38xKGvFwLMrQXusrZ2Ndt38_JWs&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=1bY7pJ1eVwVE3lTyis-k26WvheQQAP0q2-i6pBpz0k4&s=Vr4YKyexqu6BmwmD38xKGvFwLMrQXusrZ2Ndt38_JWs&e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=1bY7pJ1eVwVE3lTyis-k26WvheQQAP0q2-i6pBpz0k4&s=Vr4YKyexqu6BmwmD38xKGvFwLMrQXusrZ2Ndt38_JWs&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=1bY7pJ1eVwVE3lTyis-k26WvheQQAP0q2-i6pBpz0k4&s=Vr4YKyexqu6BmwmD38xKGvFwLMrQXusrZ2Ndt38_JWs&e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=1bY7pJ1eVwVE3lTyis-k26WvheQQAP0q2-i6pBpz0k4&s=Vr4YKyexqu6BmwmD38xKGvFwLMrQXusrZ2Ndt38_JWs&e=>
+ 1 On 05/02/2016 10:35, Burr, Becky wrote:
It is an enormous overstatement to say that this would preclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases. The GAC can participate in all discussions, debates, considerations, etc. In a limited number of situations involving GAC Advice (and we know precisely what that is from the scorecards, etc.), the GAC would not be permitted to participate as a decision maker. Keep in mind, we haven’t even really been told if the GAC wants to participate as a decision maker in the first place.
*J. Beckwith Burr**** **Neustar, Inc.***/**Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 *Office:***+1.202.533.2932 *Mobile:***+1.202.352.6367 */**neustar.biz* <http://www.neustar.biz>
From: "<Perez Galindo>", Rafael <RPEREZGA@minetur.es <mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>> Date: Friday, February 5, 2016 at 12:53 PM To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Cc: "thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>" <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either.
Best Rafael
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.
-------- Original message -------- From: "James M. Bladel" Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00) To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Hello Jorge -
Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC?
Thanks—
J.
On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com%3E>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com><mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com%3E>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com><mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc onsulting.com>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com><mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchco nsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz%3Cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com> <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com%3E>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3E>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%3E>> <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%3E>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com> <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com%3E>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3E>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavo <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3E%3Cmailto:kavo> uss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3E%3E>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3E%3Cmailto>: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3E%3E>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3E%3Cmailto>: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3E%3E>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-c ross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun <mailto:accountability-cr%3Cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3E>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accounta <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3Cmailto:accounta> bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshat <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3E%3Cmailto:gregshat> anipc@gmail.com <mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<ma <mailto:milton@gatech.edu%3E%3Cmailto:milton@gatech.edu%3Cma> ilto:milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability <mailto:accountability-cross-comm%3Cmailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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
http://heritage.org<; <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org-26lt-3B&d=CwQF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=1bY7pJ1eVwVE3lTyis-k26WvheQQAP0q2-i6pBpz0k4&s=9E_NKkEXue00p1w50fTL-b2KW4jVSR4duDppZ9QOXHo&e=>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8T <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__-26gt-3B-26gt-3B.org-5F-...> jDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGN u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3Cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3E%3Cmailto>: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3E%3E>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3E%3Cmailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3Cmailto:juka> cz@erst.dk <mailto:cz@erst.dk>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3E%3Cmailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3Cmailto:juka> cz@erst.dk <mailto:cz@erst.dk>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability <mailto:accountability-cross-com%3Cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability <mailto:accountability-cross-com%3Cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz%3E%3Cmailto:Becky.Burr> @neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%3E%3Cmailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr%3E%3Cmailto:Mathieu.We> ill@afnic.fr <mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx%3E%3Cmailto:leonfelipe@s> anchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.ad <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3Cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.ad> min.ch>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3E%3Cmailto>: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3E%3E>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3E%3Cmailto>: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3E%3E>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3Cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3E%3Cmailto>: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3E%3E>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3E%3Cmailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3Cmailto:juka> cz@erst.dk <mailto:cz@erst.dk>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3E%3Cmailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3Cmailto:juka> cz@erst.dk <mailto:cz@erst.dk>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability <mailto:accountability-cross-com%3Cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability <mailto:accountability-cross-com%3Cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3E%3Cmailto>: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3E%3E>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3E%3Cmailto>: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3E%3E>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-c ross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun <mailto:accountability-cr%3Cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3E>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accounta <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3Cmailto:accounta> bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability <mailto:accountability-cross-com%3Cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukac <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3Cmailto:jukac> z@erst.dk <mailto:z@erst.dk>>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk...> ?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d=CwIG <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__3A-5F-5Fwww.erhvervsstyr...> aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PW w WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-c ross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun <mailto:accountability-cr%3Cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3E>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accounta <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3Cmailto:accounta> bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability <mailto:accountability-cross-comm%3Cmailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz-26gt-3B-26lt-3Bhttp-3A__www.neustar.biz&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=1bY7pJ1eVwVE3lTyis-k26WvheQQAP0q2-i6pBpz0k4&s=rdgLxZ8PhuGWsw8OvpgxWAb9-vlR5UIOuSJZndE3j0M&e=>>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavo <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3E%3Cmailto:kavo> uss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3E%3E>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-co mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability <mailto:accountability-cross-com%3Cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz%3E%3Cmailto:becky.burr> @neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr%3E%3Cmailto:Mathieu.We> ill@afnic.fr <mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%3E%3Cmailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx%3E%3Cmailto:leonfelipe@s> anchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3Cmailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm a n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL C _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozb e OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3Cmailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_l U Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZX Y oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object? Regards, Keith From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM To: James M. Bladel; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; Drazek, Keith Cc: thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either. Best Rafael Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos. -------- Original message -------- From: "James M. Bladel" Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00) To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Hello Jorge - Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC? Thanks- J. On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com%3cmailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b>>onsulting.com>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchco> nsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>> <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto:kavo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accounta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshat <mailto:gregshat%0b>>>>anipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu%3cmailto:milton@gatech.edu>><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<ma <mailto:milton@gatech.edu%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton@gatech.edu>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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
http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__> heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8T> jDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGN u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:Becky.Burr <mailto:Becky.Burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.ad <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.ad%0b>>>>min.ch>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accounta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukac z@erst.dk<mailto:z@erst.dk>>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url> ?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d=CwIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PW w WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accounta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz>>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto:kavo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:becky.burr <mailto:becky.burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3cmailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm%0b>>>>a n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL C _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozb e OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3cmailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_l U Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZX Y oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Keith This is an interesting question. But what we have on the table is the third draft report. This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some gnso members (who have proposed this) best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>: We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, “Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?” Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky’s emails. If the GAC can’t reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object? Regards, Keith From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM To: James M. Bladel; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; Drazek, Keith Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either. Best Rafael Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos. -------- Original message -------- From: "James M. Bladel" Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00) To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Hello Jorge - Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC? Thanks— J. On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com%3cmailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b>>onsulting.com<http://onsulting.com>>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchco> nsulting.com<http://nsulting.com>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>> <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto:kavo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accounta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshat <mailto:gregshat%0b>>>>anipc@gmail.com<mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu%3cmailto:milton@gatech.edu>><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<ma <mailto:milton@gatech.edu%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton@gatech.edu<http://gatech.edu>>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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
http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__> heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8T> jDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGN u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:Becky.Burr <mailto:Becky.Burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.ad <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.ad%0b>>>>min.ch<http://min.ch>>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accounta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukac z@erst.dk<mailto:z@erst.dk>>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url> ?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d=CwIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PW w WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accounta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz>>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto:kavo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:becky.burr <mailto:becky.burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3cmailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm%0b>>>>a n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL C _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozb e OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3cmailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_l U Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZX Y oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Jorge, Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations. The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it. If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute. Regards, Keith -----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Keith This is an interesting question. But what we have on the table is the third draft report. This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some gnso members (who have proposed this) best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>: We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object? Regards, Keith From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM To: James M. Bladel; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; Drazek, Keith Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either. Best Rafael Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos. -------- Original message -------- From: "James M. Bladel" Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00) To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Hello Jorge - Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC? Thanks- J. On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com%3cmailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbran chc <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b>>onsulting.com<http://onsulting.com>>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranc hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rosenz weig@redbranchco> nsulting.com<http://nsulting.com>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Bec ky.Burr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@ gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>> <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / +neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailt o:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:ka vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto:k avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabilit y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:acc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabilit y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bounc es@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cros s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregsh atanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshat <mailto:gregshat%0b>>>>anipc@gmail.com<mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu% 3cmailto:milton@gatech.edu>><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<ma <mailto:milton@gatech.edu%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton@gatech.edu<http://gatech.edu>>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross- com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta bility-cross-com> munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountabil ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3cm ailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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
http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3 A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=h ttp-3A__> heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8M o8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X _GRlaq8Mo8T> jDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2 mGN u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<ma ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Bu rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:Becky.Burr <mailto:Becky.Burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin. ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@b akom.admin.ch>> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom .ad <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.ad%0b>>>>min.ch<http://min.ch>>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<ma ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabilit y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:acc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabilit y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bounc es@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cros s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:j ukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukac z@erst.dk<mailto:z@erst.dk>>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/ url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.co m/v2/url> ?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d=C wIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB 1PW w WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabilit y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:acc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabilit y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bounc es@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cros s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross- com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta bility-cross-com> munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountabil ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3cm ailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz><http://www.neusta r.biz<http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz>>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:ka vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto:k avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.bu rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:becky.burr <mailto:becky.burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountabil ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3cm ailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7 M&e =
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma ilm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm%0b>>>>a n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETe DAL C _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2H ozb e OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC 7M& e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountabil ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3cm ailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7 M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7 M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C omm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountab ility-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail man _ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL C_l U Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe OZX Y oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountabi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountabi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountabi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountabi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co mmunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Keith I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements? The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right? Best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Dear Jorge,
Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations.
The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it.
If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute.
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
This is an interesting question.
But what we have on the table is the third draft report.
This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some gnso members (who have proposed this)
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object?
Regards, Keith
From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM To: James M. Bladel; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; Drazek, Keith Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either.
Best Rafael
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.
-------- Original message -------- From: "James M. Bladel" Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00) To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Hello Jorge -
Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC?
Thanks-
J.
On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com%3cmailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbran chc <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b>>onsulting.com<http://onsulting.com>>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranc hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rosenz weig@redbranchco> nsulting.com<http://nsulting.com>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Bec ky.Burr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@ gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>> <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / +neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailt o:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:ka vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto:k avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabilit y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:acc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabilit y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bounc es@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cros s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregsh atanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshat <mailto:gregshat%0b>>>>anipc@gmail.com<mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu% 3cmailto:milton@gatech.edu>><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<ma <mailto:milton@gatech.edu%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton@gatech.edu<http://gatech.edu>>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross- com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta bility-cross-com> munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountabil ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3cm ailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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
http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3 A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=h ttp-3A__> heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8M o8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X _GRlaq8Mo8T> jDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2 mGN u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<ma ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Bu rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:Becky.Burr <mailto:Becky.Burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin. ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@b akom.admin.ch>> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom .ad <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.ad%0b>>>>min.ch<http://min.ch>>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<ma ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabilit y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:acc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabilit y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bounc es@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cros s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:j ukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukac z@erst.dk<mailto:z@erst.dk>>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/ url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.co m/v2/url> ?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d=C wIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB 1PW w WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabilit y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:acc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabilit y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bounc es@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cros s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross- com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta bility-cross-com> munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountabil ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3cm ailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz><http://www.neusta r.biz<http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz>>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:ka vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto:k avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.bu rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:becky.burr <mailto:becky.burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountabil ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3cm ailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7 M&e =
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma ilm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm%0b>>>>a n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETe DAL C _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2H ozb e OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC 7M& e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountabil ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3cm ailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7 M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7 M&e =
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C omm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountab ility-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail man _ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL C_l U Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe OZX Y oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountabi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountabi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountabi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountabi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co mmunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thanks Jorge, A majority of the GNSO's constituent groups view the combination of Rec-1, Rec-10 and Rec-11 as "interlinked." The majority of GNSO groups (sufficient to reject) view ANY change of Board voting threshold for GAC consensus advice to be highly problematic. The GNSO's willingness to consider and accept Kavouss' suggested compromise of 60% is entirely dependent upon the further clarifications suggested by Becky in the Arasteh/Burr proposal. I've attached the GNSO Council comments, which are a summary of the GNSO groups comments, for your further review. Here are the relevant texts:
From the GNSO Comments on Rec-1:
"Some in the GNSO have identified a clear link with Recommendations #10 & #11 and are of the view that the current balance between SO/ACs needs to be preserved in the Empowered Community, especially with respect to the GAC." [This means the status quo should be maintained -- the GAC should remain advisory and not have a decisional role.]
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-10:
"There are some concerns within the GNSO with the top down nature of accountability reviews, and the exemption of the GAC from this community requirement. It is also troubling that the GAC, further empowered if Recommendations #1 and #11 are adopted, would be exempted from the same periodic reviews as the other SO/ACs. All participants in the Community Mechanism should be subject to equivalent accountability reviews."
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-11:
"There is broad opposition to this recommendation as written. Most SG/Cs do not support the proposal to raise the threshold for a Board vote to reject GAC advice. All expressed serious concerns over the lack of specificity in the recommendation in relation to the requirements for GAC advice (such as the provision of rationale) and the possibility that this recommendation, if adopted, could unduly change the nature of the Board-GAC relationship and/or the position of the GAC vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs also believe that any CCWG recommendation on this topic should retain the current flexibility in the Bylaws where the Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in order to reject GAC advice." "IPC, NCSG and the Registrars SG expressly objected to changing and specifying the threshold for Board action; the Registries SG and ISPCP Constituency did not object expressly but highlighted significant concerns about the implications of such a change. The Registries SG stated it was unlikely to support the 2/3 threshold for Board action unless three additional requirements (provision of a rationale, consistency with ICANN bylaws and within GAC scope, and defined consensus) applied to such GAC Advice. While BC and NPOC supported the change, both nevertheless also noted concerns over the implications, with the BC's support expressly conditioned upon certain qualifications being made to the proposal." Regards, Keith -----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 2:16 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Keith I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements? The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right? Best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Dear Jorge,
Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations.
The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it.
If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute.
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
This is an interesting question.
But what we have on the table is the third draft report.
This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some gnso members (who have proposed this)
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object?
Regards, Keith
From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM To: James M. Bladel; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; Drazek, Keith Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c ommunity@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either.
Best Rafael
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.
-------- Original message -------- From: "James M. Bladel" Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00) To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c ommunity@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Hello Jorge -
Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC?
Thanks-
J.
On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com%3cmailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbr an chc <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b>>onsulting.com<http://onsulting.com>>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbra nc hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rose nz weig@redbranchco> nsulting.com<http://nsulting.com>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:B ec ky.Burr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavall i@ gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>> <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / +neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mai lt o:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>
escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: ka vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto :k avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:greg sh atanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregsha t <mailto:gregshat%0b>>>>anipc@gmail.com<mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.ed u% 3cmailto:milton@gatech.edu>><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<ma <mailto:milton@gatech.edu%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton@gatech.edu<http://gat ech.edu>>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros s- com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun ta bility-cross-com> munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 cm ailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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
http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http -3 A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u =h ttp-3A__> heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq 8M o8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm 6X _GRlaq8Mo8T> jDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolh J2 mGN u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< ma ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> ] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>
; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky. Bu rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:Becky.Burr <mailto:Becky.Burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:Becky .Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli pe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli pe@sanchez.mx>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin. ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider @b akom.admin.ch>> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bak om .ad <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bako m.ad%0b>>>>min.ch<http://min.ch>>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< ma ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> ] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto :j ukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukac z@erst.dk<mailto:z@erst.dk>>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v 2/ url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint. co m/v2/url> ?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d =C wIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioS UB 1PW w WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros s- com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun ta bility-cross-com> munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 cm ailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz><http://www.neus ta r.biz<http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz>>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: ka vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto :k avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail. com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>
, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky. bu rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:becky.burr <mailto:becky.burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:becky .burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli pe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli pe@sanchez.mx>>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 cm ailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e =
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ ma ilm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lm%0b>>>>a n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIE Te DAL C _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7- 2H ozb e OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X- wC 7M& e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 cm ailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e =
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross -C omm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Account ab ility-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma il man _ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD AL C_l U Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hoz be OZX Y oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C ommunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Keith Thank you very much for this full text of the gnso input. I'm aware if the concerns expressed by the gnso, and as I have said several times, I consider them legitimate and relevant, although we may have different opinions on their degree of impact or the means to address them. At the same time we all know that the GAC came a long way to reach a consensus input on the then ST18, now rec11. And such difficulties were based on concerns from a relevant number of governments whose concerns I feel we should also consider legitimate and worth consideration. Rec11 was then based on a compromise, which still raised concerns from sectors of the gnso and from a number of governments. I think the solution is not to privilege parts of the community in reaching a solution. We need to take on board as many stakeholders and constituencies as possible. In the last weeks we agreed, we all agreed, to take up important points made by the gnso on rec11: clarify that the Board has no new obligations, the obligation of a clear rationale, the clarification that Board decisions always have to be consistent with Bylaws, irrespective of the source of the advice on which such a decision is based. On rec10 we also made additions to address concerns expressed around the accountability review of the GAC. And again on rec11 -as I also said- I felt that Becky's initial proposal (at least as some of us understood it) was one possible means. And I think that if we narrow it down to the community IRP it could work. But to word it in such broad terms as it is now has the effect I have repeatedly described. Our lawyers could analyze the scooe of such an exception and advise us. If we agree that the GAC is a legitimate participant in the community mechanism, as we habe repeatedly and consistently agreed, then we cannot favour an overbroad carve-out, because the GAC would not be able to participate on an equal footing in the community mechanism. In such case we need to clarify and word the carve-out in such terms that it is clear that we just want a very narrow carve-out and that this will not prevent the GAC from normally participating in the community mechanism, with a few exceptions. If the intention is to have a broad carve-out, then we would not be able to agree. But I hope that we are in the first case. best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Thanks Jorge,
A majority of the GNSO's constituent groups view the combination of Rec-1, Rec-10 and Rec-11 as "interlinked." The majority of GNSO groups (sufficient to reject) view ANY change of Board voting threshold for GAC consensus advice to be highly problematic. The GNSO's willingness to consider and accept Kavouss' suggested compromise of 60% is entirely dependent upon the further clarifications suggested by Becky in the Arasteh/Burr proposal.
I've attached the GNSO Council comments, which are a summary of the GNSO groups comments, for your further review. Here are the relevant texts:
From the GNSO Comments on Rec-1:
"Some in the GNSO have identified a clear link with Recommendations #10 & #11 and are of the view that the current balance between SO/ACs needs to be preserved in the Empowered Community, especially with respect to the GAC." [This means the status quo should be maintained -- the GAC should remain advisory and not have a decisional role.]
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-10:
"There are some concerns within the GNSO with the top down nature of accountability reviews, and the exemption of the GAC from this community requirement. It is also troubling that the GAC, further empowered if Recommendations #1 and #11 are adopted, would be exempted from the same periodic reviews as the other SO/ACs. All participants in the Community Mechanism should be subject to equivalent accountability reviews."
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-11:
"There is broad opposition to this recommendation as written. Most SG/Cs do not support the proposal to raise the threshold for a Board vote to reject GAC advice. All expressed serious concerns over the lack of specificity in the recommendation in relation to the requirements for GAC advice (such as the provision of rationale) and the possibility that this recommendation, if adopted, could unduly change the nature of the Board-GAC relationship and/or the position of the GAC vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs also believe that any CCWG recommendation on this topic should retain the current flexibility in the Bylaws where the Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in order to reject GAC advice."
"IPC, NCSG and the Registrars SG expressly objected to changing and specifying the threshold for Board action; the Registries SG and ISPCP Constituency did not object expressly but highlighted significant concerns about the implications of such a change. The Registries SG stated it was unlikely to support the 2/3 threshold for Board action unless three additional requirements (provision of a rationale, consistency with ICANN bylaws and within GAC scope, and defined consensus) applied to such GAC Advice. While BC and NPOC supported the change, both nevertheless also noted concerns over the implications, with the BC's support expressly conditioned upon certain qualifications being made to the proposal."
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 2:16 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements?
The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right?
Best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Dear Jorge,
Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations.
The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it.
If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute.
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
This is an interesting question.
But what we have on the table is the third draft report.
This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some gnso members (who have proposed this)
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object?
Regards, Keith
From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM To: James M. Bladel; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; Drazek, Keith Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c ommunity@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either.
Best Rafael
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.
-------- Original message -------- From: "James M. Bladel" Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00) To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c ommunity@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Hello Jorge -
Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC?
Thanks-
J.
On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com%3cmailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbr an chc <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b>>onsulting.com<http://onsulting.com>>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbra nc hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rose nz weig@redbranchco> nsulting.com<http://nsulting.com>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:B ec ky.Burr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavall i@ gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>> <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / +neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mai lt o:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: ka vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto :k avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:greg sh atanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregsha t <mailto:gregshat%0b>>>>anipc@gmail.com<mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.ed u% 3cmailto:milton@gatech.edu>><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<ma <mailto:milton@gatech.edu%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton@gatech.edu<http://gat ech.edu>>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros s- com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun ta bility-cross-com> munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 cm ailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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
http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http -3 A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u =h ttp-3A__> heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq 8M o8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm 6X _GRlaq8Mo8T> jDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolh J2 mGN u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< ma ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> ] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>
; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky. Bu rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:Becky.Burr <mailto:Becky.Burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:Becky .Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli pe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli pe@sanchez.mx>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin. ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider @b akom.admin.ch>> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bak om .ad <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bako m.ad%0b>>>>min.ch<http://min.ch>>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< ma ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> ] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto :j ukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukac z@erst.dk<mailto:z@erst.dk>>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v 2/ url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint. co m/v2/url> ?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d =C wIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioS UB 1PW w WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros s- com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun ta bility-cross-com> munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 cm ailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz><http://www.neus ta r.biz<http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz>>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: ka vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto :k avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail. com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>
, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky. bu rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:becky.burr <mailto:becky.burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:becky .burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli pe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli pe@sanchez.mx>>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 cm ailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e =
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ ma ilm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lm%0b>>>>a n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIE Te DAL C _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7- 2H ozb e OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X- wC 7M& e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 cm ailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e =
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross -C omm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Account ab ility-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma il man _ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD AL C_l U Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hoz be OZX Y oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C ommunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <GNSO Council Response to CCWG-Accountability - FINAL - 22 January 2016.pdf>
Jorge, I think at this point the GAC needs to go back and consider the proposition that is on the table the the GNSO appears to be in a position to support. We do not have the timelines available to us to continue to argue over this, the GNSO has come to rough support on a position now, I feel its time for the GAC to go back to its own processes with this proposition to evaluate it. We are all aware of the GACs wants in this, but that does not mean that the GNSO community will agree to them as we have laid out in our comments to the 3rd Draft proposal. I feel that if we keep going around in circles over what the GNSO and GAC are potentially able to negotiate we will never end this process, and I think we all want to attempt to bring this to a close ASAP. I hope that the GAC can continue to show its flexibility and ability to compromise and work together with the broad community on this, no-one is setting out to disenfranchise any stakeholder group here, we are all trying to make this the least bad solution that we can all agree on. On this point no-one is winning and no-one is losing. -James On 05/02/2016, 8:03 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Keith
Thank you very much for this full text of the gnso input.
I'm aware if the concerns expressed by the gnso, and as I have said several times, I consider them legitimate and relevant, although we may have different opinions on their degree of impact or the means to address them.
At the same time we all know that the GAC came a long way to reach a consensus input on the then ST18, now rec11. And such difficulties were based on concerns from a relevant number of governments whose concerns I feel we should also consider legitimate and worth consideration.
Rec11 was then based on a compromise, which still raised concerns from sectors of the gnso and from a number of governments.
I think the solution is not to privilege parts of the community in reaching a solution.
We need to take on board as many stakeholders and constituencies as possible.
In the last weeks we agreed, we all agreed, to take up important points made by the gnso on rec11: clarify that the Board has no new obligations, the obligation of a clear rationale, the clarification that Board decisions always have to be consistent with Bylaws, irrespective of the source of the advice on which such a decision is based.
On rec10 we also made additions to address concerns expressed around the accountability review of the GAC.
And again on rec11 -as I also said- I felt that Becky's initial proposal (at least as some of us understood it) was one possible means. And I think that if we narrow it down to the community IRP it could work.
But to word it in such broad terms as it is now has the effect I have repeatedly described. Our lawyers could analyze the scooe of such an exception and advise us.
If we agree that the GAC is a legitimate participant in the community mechanism, as we habe repeatedly and consistently agreed, then we cannot favour an overbroad carve-out, because the GAC would not be able to participate on an equal footing in the community mechanism.
In such case we need to clarify and word the carve-out in such terms that it is clear that we just want a very narrow carve-out and that this will not prevent the GAC from normally participating in the community mechanism, with a few exceptions.
If the intention is to have a broad carve-out, then we would not be able to agree.
But I hope that we are in the first case.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Thanks Jorge,
A majority of the GNSO's constituent groups view the combination of Rec-1, Rec-10 and Rec-11 as "interlinked." The majority of GNSO groups (sufficient to reject) view ANY change of Board voting threshold for GAC consensus advice to be highly problematic. The GNSO's willingness to consider and accept Kavouss' suggested compromise of 60% is entirely dependent upon the further clarifications suggested by Becky in the Arasteh/Burr proposal.
I've attached the GNSO Council comments, which are a summary of the GNSO groups comments, for your further review. Here are the relevant texts:
From the GNSO Comments on Rec-1:
"Some in the GNSO have identified a clear link with Recommendations #10 & #11 and are of the view that the current balance between SO/ACs needs to be preserved in the Empowered Community, especially with respect to the GAC." [This means the status quo should be maintained -- the GAC should remain advisory and not have a decisional role.]
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-10:
"There are some concerns within the GNSO with the top down nature of accountability reviews, and the exemption of the GAC from this community requirement. It is also troubling that the GAC, further empowered if Recommendations #1 and #11 are adopted, would be exempted from the same periodic reviews as the other SO/ACs. All participants in the Community Mechanism should be subject to equivalent accountability reviews."
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-11:
"There is broad opposition to this recommendation as written. Most SG/Cs do not support the proposal to raise the threshold for a Board vote to reject GAC advice. All expressed serious concerns over the lack of specificity in the recommendation in relation to the requirements for GAC advice (such as the provision of rationale) and the possibility that this recommendation, if adopted, could unduly change the nature of the Board-GAC relationship and/or the position of the GAC vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs also believe that any CCWG recommendation on this topic should retain the current flexibility in the Bylaws where the Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in order to reject GAC advice."
"IPC, NCSG and the Registrars SG expressly objected to changing and specifying the threshold for Board action; the Registries SG and ISPCP Constituency did not object expressly but highlighted significant concerns about the implications of such a change. The Registries SG stated it was unlikely to support the 2/3 threshold for Board action unless three additional requirements (provision of a rationale, consistency with ICANN bylaws and within GAC scope, and defined consensus) applied to such GAC Advice. While BC and NPOC supported the change, both nevertheless also noted concerns over the implications, with the BC's support expressly conditioned upon certain qualifications being made to the proposal."
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 2:16 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements?
The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right?
Best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Dear Jorge,
Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations.
The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it.
If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute.
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
This is an interesting question.
But what we have on the table is the third draft report.
This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some gnso members (who have proposed this)
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object?
Regards, Keith
From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM To: James M. Bladel; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; Drazek, Keith Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c ommunity@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either.
Best Rafael
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.
-------- Original message -------- From: "James M. Bladel" Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00) To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c ommunity@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Hello Jorge -
Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC?
Thanks-
J.
On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com%3cmailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbr an chc <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b>>onsulting.com<http://onsulting.com>>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbra nc hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rose nz weig@redbranchco> nsulting.com<http://nsulting.com>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:B ec ky.Burr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavall i@ gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>> <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / +neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mai lt o:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: ka vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto :k avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:greg sh atanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregsha t <mailto:gregshat%0b>>>>anipc@gmail.com<mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.ed u% 3cmailto:milton@gatech.edu>><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<ma <mailto:milton@gatech.edu%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton@gatech.edu<http://gat ech.edu>>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros s- com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun ta bility-cross-com> munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 cm ailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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
http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http -3 A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u =h ttp-3A__> heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq 8M o8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm 6X _GRlaq8Mo8T> jDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolh J2 mGN u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< ma ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> ] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> > ; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky. Bu rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:Becky.Burr <mailto:Becky.Burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:Becky .Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli pe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli pe@sanchez.mx>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin. ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider @b akom.admin.ch>> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bak om .ad <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bako m.ad%0b>>>>min.ch<http://min.ch>>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< ma ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> ] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto :j ukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukac z@erst.dk<mailto:z@erst.dk>>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v 2/ url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint. co m/v2/url> ?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d =C wIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioS UB 1PW w WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros s- com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun ta bility-cross-com> munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 cm ailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz><http://www.neus ta r.biz<http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz>>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: ka vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto :k avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail. com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> > , Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky. bu rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:becky.burr <mailto:becky.burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:becky .burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli pe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli pe@sanchez.mx>>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 cm ailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e =
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ ma ilm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lm%0b>>>>a n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIE Te DAL C _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7- 2H ozb e OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X- wC 7M& e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 cm ailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e =
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross -C omm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Account ab ility-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma il man _ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD AL C_l U Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hoz be OZX Y oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C ommunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <GNSO Council Response to CCWG-Accountability - FINAL - 22 January 2016.pdf>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Co-chairs, Det me draw your attention to the latest developments in the discussions regarding Rec 11 (former ST 18), namely the carve-out system put forward by Becky and backed by the GNSO. While thanking Becky for this proposal, I believe we can all agree to acknowledge that the carve-out is not a mere adjustment, nor a tweak to complete or shape a package of measures, but it constitutes a major essential change, for it actually regulates the functioning of the EC with regards to the GAC, and could raise important political and legal concerns. Hence, and prior to any possible endorsement, I kindly ask that a detailed legal analisys of the proposed text be commissioned to the Legal assistance by the Co-Chairs: - who would decide whether the carve-out is applicable to a certain issue to be subject to a community decision - according to what standard would that decision be taken? For instance: is it enough if Board mentions GAC Advice in its rationale as a source for its decision. Or would a substantial test be applied, i.e. checked whether the Board decision follows GAC Advice? In the latter case, would the carve-out also apply if the GAC Advice is only partially followed? - what means of redress would be available for any party not in agreement with such a decision? - would the GAC, according to this wording, be able to participate fully in the decision-making of the community mechanism on the following topics?: 1. Any Board decision on policies or implementation of delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs, which would be taken. having regard, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs) 2. Any Board decision on policy or implementation of new gTLDs, which would also take into consideration, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on new gTLDs) Thank you and best regards Rafael ________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of James Gannon [james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: 05 February 2016 21:15 To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; kdrazek@verisign.com Cc: thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Jorge, I think at this point the GAC needs to go back and consider the proposition that is on the table the the GNSO appears to be in a position to support. We do not have the timelines available to us to continue to argue over this, the GNSO has come to rough support on a position now, I feel its time for the GAC to go back to its own processes with this proposition to evaluate it. We are all aware of the GACs wants in this, but that does not mean that the GNSO community will agree to them as we have laid out in our comments to the 3rd Draft proposal. I feel that if we keep going around in circles over what the GNSO and GAC are potentially able to negotiate we will never end this process, and I think we all want to attempt to bring this to a close ASAP. I hope that the GAC can continue to show its flexibility and ability to compromise and work together with the broad community on this, no-one is setting out to disenfranchise any stakeholder group here, we are all trying to make this the least bad solution that we can all agree on. On this point no-one is winning and no-one is losing. -James On 05/02/2016, 8:03 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Keith
Thank you very much for this full text of the gnso input.
I'm aware if the concerns expressed by the gnso, and as I have said several times, I consider them legitimate and relevant, although we may have different opinions on their degree of impact or the means to address them.
At the same time we all know that the GAC came a long way to reach a consensus input on the then ST18, now rec11. And such difficulties were based on concerns from a relevant number of governments whose concerns I feel we should also consider legitimate and worth consideration.
Rec11 was then based on a compromise, which still raised concerns from sectors of the gnso and from a number of governments.
I think the solution is not to privilege parts of the community in reaching a solution.
We need to take on board as many stakeholders and constituencies as possible.
In the last weeks we agreed, we all agreed, to take up important points made by the gnso on rec11: clarify that the Board has no new obligations, the obligation of a clear rationale, the clarification that Board decisions always have to be consistent with Bylaws, irrespective of the source of the advice on which such a decision is based.
On rec10 we also made additions to address concerns expressed around the accountability review of the GAC.
And again on rec11 -as I also said- I felt that Becky's initial proposal (at least as some of us understood it) was one possible means. And I think that if we narrow it down to the community IRP it could work.
But to word it in such broad terms as it is now has the effect I have repeatedly described. Our lawyers could analyze the scooe of such an exception and advise us.
If we agree that the GAC is a legitimate participant in the community mechanism, as we habe repeatedly and consistently agreed, then we cannot favour an overbroad carve-out, because the GAC would not be able to participate on an equal footing in the community mechanism.
In such case we need to clarify and word the carve-out in such terms that it is clear that we just want a very narrow carve-out and that this will not prevent the GAC from normally participating in the community mechanism, with a few exceptions.
If the intention is to have a broad carve-out, then we would not be able to agree.
But I hope that we are in the first case.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Thanks Jorge,
A majority of the GNSO's constituent groups view the combination of Rec-1, Rec-10 and Rec-11 as "interlinked." The majority of GNSO groups (sufficient to reject) view ANY change of Board voting threshold for GAC consensus advice to be highly problematic. The GNSO's willingness to consider and accept Kavouss' suggested compromise of 60% is entirely dependent upon the further clarifications suggested by Becky in the Arasteh/Burr proposal.
I've attached the GNSO Council comments, which are a summary of the GNSO groups comments, for your further review. Here are the relevant texts:
From the GNSO Comments on Rec-1:
"Some in the GNSO have identified a clear link with Recommendations #10 & #11 and are of the view that the current balance between SO/ACs needs to be preserved in the Empowered Community, especially with respect to the GAC." [This means the status quo should be maintained -- the GAC should remain advisory and not have a decisional role.]
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-10:
"There are some concerns within the GNSO with the top down nature of accountability reviews, and the exemption of the GAC from this community requirement. It is also troubling that the GAC, further empowered if Recommendations #1 and #11 are adopted, would be exempted from the same periodic reviews as the other SO/ACs. All participants in the Community Mechanism should be subject to equivalent accountability reviews."
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-11:
"There is broad opposition to this recommendation as written. Most SG/Cs do not support the proposal to raise the threshold for a Board vote to reject GAC advice. All expressed serious concerns over the lack of specificity in the recommendation in relation to the requirements for GAC advice (such as the provision of rationale) and the possibility that this recommendation, if adopted, could unduly change the nature of the Board-GAC relationship and/or the position of the GAC vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs also believe that any CCWG recommendation on this topic should retain the current flexibility in the Bylaws where the Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in order to reject GAC advice."
"IPC, NCSG and the Registrars SG expressly objected to changing and specifying the threshold for Board action; the Registries SG and ISPCP Constituency did not object expressly but highlighted significant concerns about the implications of such a change. The Registries SG stated it was unlikely to support the 2/3 threshold for Board action unless three additional requirements (provision of a rationale, consistency with ICANN bylaws and within GAC scope, and defined consensus) applied to such GAC Advice. While BC and NPOC supported the change, both nevertheless also noted concerns over the implications, with the BC's support expressly conditioned upon certain qualifications being made to the proposal."
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 2:16 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements?
The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right?
Best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Dear Jorge,
Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations.
The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it.
If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute.
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
This is an interesting question.
But what we have on the table is the third draft report.
This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some gnso members (who have proposed this)
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object?
Regards, Keith
From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM To: James M. Bladel; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; Drazek, Keith Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c ommunity@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either.
Best Rafael
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.
-------- Original message -------- From: "James M. Bladel" Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00) To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c ommunity@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Hello Jorge -
Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC?
Thanks-
J.
On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com%3cmailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbr an chc <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b>>onsulting.com<http://onsulting.com>>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbra nc hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rose nz weig@redbranchco> nsulting.com<http://nsulting.com>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:B ec ky.Burr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavall i@ gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>> <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / +neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mai lt o:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: ka vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto :k avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:greg sh atanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregsha t <mailto:gregshat%0b>>>>anipc@gmail.com<mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.ed u% 3cmailto:milton@gatech.edu>><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<ma <mailto:milton@gatech.edu%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton@gatech.edu<http://gat ech.edu>>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros s- com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun ta bility-cross-com> munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 cm ailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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
http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http -3 A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u =h ttp-3A__> heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq 8M o8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm 6X _GRlaq8Mo8T> jDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolh J2 mGN u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< ma ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> ] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> > ; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky. Bu rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:Becky.Burr <mailto:Becky.Burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:Becky .Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli pe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli pe@sanchez.mx>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin. ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider @b akom.admin.ch>> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bak om .ad <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bako m.ad%0b>>>>min.ch<http://min.ch>>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< ma ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> ] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto :j ukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukac z@erst.dk<mailto:z@erst.dk>>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v 2/ url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint. co m/v2/url> ?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d =C wIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioS UB 1PW w WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros s- com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun ta bility-cross-com> munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 cm ailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz><http://www.neus ta r.biz<http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz>>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: ka vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto :k avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail. com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> > , Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky. bu rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:becky.burr <mailto:becky.burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:becky .burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli pe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli pe@sanchez.mx>>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 cm ailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e =
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ ma ilm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lm%0b>>>>a n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIE Te DAL C _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7- 2H ozb e OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X- wC 7M& e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 cm ailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e =
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross -C omm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Account ab ility-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma il man _ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD AL C_l U Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hoz be OZX Y oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C ommunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <GNSO Council Response to CCWG-Accountability - FINAL - 22 January 2016.pdf>
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 Co-Chairs Rafael request is legitimate I fully support test perhaps if the Co-Chairs agree, it could be studied during the week-end in preparation of our Monday Call Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 6 Feb 2016, at 11:32, Perez Galindo, Rafael <RPEREZGA@minetur.es> wrote:
Dear Co-chairs,
Det me draw your attention to the latest developments in the discussions regarding Rec 11 (former ST 18), namely the carve-out system put forward by Becky and backed by the GNSO.
While thanking Becky for this proposal, I believe we can all agree to acknowledge that the carve-out is not a mere adjustment, nor a tweak to complete or shape a package of measures, but it constitutes a major essential change, for it actually regulates the functioning of the EC with regards to the GAC, and could raise important political and legal concerns.
Hence, and prior to any possible endorsement, I kindly ask that a detailed legal analisys of the proposed text be commissioned to the Legal assistance by the Co-Chairs:
- who would decide whether the carve-out is applicable to a certain issue to be subject to a community decision
- according to what standard would that decision be taken? For instance: is it enough if Board mentions GAC Advice in its rationale as a source for its decision. Or would a substantial test be applied, i.e. checked whether the Board decision follows GAC Advice? In the latter case, would the carve-out also apply if the GAC Advice is only partially followed?
- what means of redress would be available for any party not in agreement with such a decision?
- would the GAC, according to this wording, be able to participate fully in the decision-making of the community mechanism on the following topics?:
1. Any Board decision on policies or implementation of delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs, which would be taken. having regard, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs)
2. Any Board decision on policy or implementation of new gTLDs, which would also take into consideration, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on new gTLDs)
Thank you and best regards
Rafael
________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of James Gannon [james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: 05 February 2016 21:15 To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; kdrazek@verisign.com Cc: thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Jorge, I think at this point the GAC needs to go back and consider the proposition that is on the table the the GNSO appears to be in a position to support.
We do not have the timelines available to us to continue to argue over this, the GNSO has come to rough support on a position now, I feel its time for the GAC to go back to its own processes with this proposition to evaluate it. We are all aware of the GACs wants in this, but that does not mean that the GNSO community will agree to them as we have laid out in our comments to the 3rd Draft proposal.
I feel that if we keep going around in circles over what the GNSO and GAC are potentially able to negotiate we will never end this process, and I think we all want to attempt to bring this to a close ASAP. I hope that the GAC can continue to show its flexibility and ability to compromise and work together with the broad community on this, no-one is setting out to disenfranchise any stakeholder group here, we are all trying to make this the least bad solution that we can all agree on. On this point no-one is winning and no-one is losing.
-James
On 05/02/2016, 8:03 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Keith
Thank you very much for this full text of the gnso input.
I'm aware if the concerns expressed by the gnso, and as I have said several times, I consider them legitimate and relevant, although we may have different opinions on their degree of impact or the means to address them.
At the same time we all know that the GAC came a long way to reach a consensus input on the then ST18, now rec11. And such difficulties were based on concerns from a relevant number of governments whose concerns I feel we should also consider legitimate and worth consideration.
Rec11 was then based on a compromise, which still raised concerns from sectors of the gnso and from a number of governments.
I think the solution is not to privilege parts of the community in reaching a solution.
We need to take on board as many stakeholders and constituencies as possible.
In the last weeks we agreed, we all agreed, to take up important points made by the gnso on rec11: clarify that the Board has no new obligations, the obligation of a clear rationale, the clarification that Board decisions always have to be consistent with Bylaws, irrespective of the source of the advice on which such a decision is based.
On rec10 we also made additions to address concerns expressed around the accountability review of the GAC.
And again on rec11 -as I also said- I felt that Becky's initial proposal (at least as some of us understood it) was one possible means. And I think that if we narrow it down to the community IRP it could work.
But to word it in such broad terms as it is now has the effect I have repeatedly described. Our lawyers could analyze the scooe of such an exception and advise us.
If we agree that the GAC is a legitimate participant in the community mechanism, as we habe repeatedly and consistently agreed, then we cannot favour an overbroad carve-out, because the GAC would not be able to participate on an equal footing in the community mechanism.
In such case we need to clarify and word the carve-out in such terms that it is clear that we just want a very narrow carve-out and that this will not prevent the GAC from normally participating in the community mechanism, with a few exceptions.
If the intention is to have a broad carve-out, then we would not be able to agree.
But I hope that we are in the first case.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Thanks Jorge,
A majority of the GNSO's constituent groups view the combination of Rec-1, Rec-10 and Rec-11 as "interlinked." The majority of GNSO groups (sufficient to reject) view ANY change of Board voting threshold for GAC consensus advice to be highly problematic. The GNSO's willingness to consider and accept Kavouss' suggested compromise of 60% is entirely dependent upon the further clarifications suggested by Becky in the Arasteh/Burr proposal.
I've attached the GNSO Council comments, which are a summary of the GNSO groups comments, for your further review. Here are the relevant texts:
From the GNSO Comments on Rec-1:
"Some in the GNSO have identified a clear link with Recommendations #10 & #11 and are of the view that the current balance between SO/ACs needs to be preserved in the Empowered Community, especially with respect to the GAC." [This means the status quo should be maintained -- the GAC should remain advisory and not have a decisional role.]
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-10:
"There are some concerns within the GNSO with the top down nature of accountability reviews, and the exemption of the GAC from this community requirement. It is also troubling that the GAC, further empowered if Recommendations #1 and #11 are adopted, would be exempted from the same periodic reviews as the other SO/ACs. All participants in the Community Mechanism should be subject to equivalent accountability reviews."
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-11:
"There is broad opposition to this recommendation as written. Most SG/Cs do not support the proposal to raise the threshold for a Board vote to reject GAC advice. All expressed serious concerns over the lack of specificity in the recommendation in relation to the requirements for GAC advice (such as the provision of rationale) and the possibility that this recommendation, if adopted, could unduly change the nature of the Board-GAC relationship and/or the position of the GAC vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs also believe that any CCWG recommendation on this topic should retain the current flexibility in the Bylaws where the Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in order to reject GAC advice."
"IPC, NCSG and the Registrars SG expressly objected to changing and specifying the threshold for Board action; the Registries SG and ISPCP Constituency did not object expressly but highlighted significant concerns about the implications of such a change. The Registries SG stated it was unlikely to support the 2/3 threshold for Board action unless three additional requirements (provision of a rationale, consistency with ICANN bylaws and within GAC scope, and defined consensus) applied to such GAC Advice. While BC and NPOC supported the change, both nevertheless also noted concerns over the implications, with the BC's support expressly conditioned upon certain qualifications being made to the proposal."
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 2:16 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements?
The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right?
Best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Dear Jorge,
Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations.
The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it.
If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute.
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
This is an interesting question.
But what we have on the table is the third draft report.
This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some gnso members (who have proposed this)
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object?
Regards, Keith
From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM To: James M. Bladel; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; Drazek, Keith Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c ommunity@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either.
Best Rafael
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.
-------- Original message -------- From: "James M. Bladel" Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00) To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c ommunity@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Hello Jorge -
Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC?
Thanks-
J.
On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com%3cmailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbr an chc <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b>>onsulting.com<http://onsulting.com>>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbra nc hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rose nz weig@redbranchco> nsulting.com<http://nsulting.com>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:B ec ky.Burr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavall i@ gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>> <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / +neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
> El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett > <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mai > lt > o:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> > escribió: > > Kavouss, > > Becky responded to this yesterday: > > Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table > when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to > Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email > demonstrating this. > > I expect she will follow up soon. > > Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the > GAC carve out to IRP. > > I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, > but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of > Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday. > > If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve > this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have > arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it. > > Best, > > Brett > > > > On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh > <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: > ka > vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto > :k > avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>> wrote: > > Dear Beckie > As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have > serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in > the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and > send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current > text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED > TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. > As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be > more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr > revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial > text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. > Awaiting your action , I remain > Regards > Kavousd > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: > > Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky > > This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to > (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged): > > == > > Von: > accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil > it > y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: > accountability-c> > ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a > cc > oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil > it > y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> > tability-cr> > oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. > or > g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou > nc > es@icann.org>>> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc > ou > nta > bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr > os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky > Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 > An: Greg Shatan > <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:greg > sh > atanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregsha > t <mailto:gregshat%0b>>>>anipc@gmail.com<mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, > Milton L > <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.ed > u% 3cmailto:milton@gatech.edu>><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<ma <mailto:milton@gatech.edu%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton@gatech.edu<http://gat ech.edu>>>> > Cc: > accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros > s- > com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun > ta > bility-cross-com> > munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab > il > ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 > cm > ailto:accountability> > -cross-comm> > unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> > Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, > GAC consensus, and finishing > > I have a proposal for discussion. > > Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only > consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we > accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC > cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of > community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. > In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than > two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the > Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of > ICANN¹s Mission. > > I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might > otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the > 2/3rds rejection threshold. > > Just a thought - > > === > > Regards > > Jorge > > > ________________________________ > 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 > > http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http > -3 > A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u > =h > ttp-3A__> > heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq 8M o8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm 6X _GRlaq8Mo8T> jDmrxdYa > hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolh > J2 > mGN > u > 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > > Von: Kavouss Arasteh > [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< > ma > ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> > ] > Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 > An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> > Cc: > <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: > jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> > <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: > jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> > -cross-com> > munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> > -cross-com> > munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> >> ; > Becky Burr > <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky. > Bu > rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:Becky.Burr <mailto:Becky.Burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:Becky .Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert > <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert > .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill > <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. > Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe > Sánchez Ambía > <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli > pe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli pe@sanchez.mx>>>; > Schneider Thomas BAKOM > <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin. > ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider > @b > akom.admin.ch>> > <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bak > om > .ad <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bako m.ad%0b>>>>min.ch<http://min.ch>>>> > Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve > Recommendation > 1 and 11 issues > > Dear Beckie, > Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member > requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial > Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page > deal" if includes your original text. > Regards > Kavouss > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: > Dear Kavouss > > In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of > community > IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many > concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations. > > Regards > > Jorge > > Von: Kavouss Arasteh > [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< > ma > ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> > ] > Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 > An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> > Cc: > <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: > jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> > <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: > jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> > -cross-com> > munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> > -cross-com> > munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> > Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation > 1 and 11 issues > > Dear All, > Why Not taking initial Beckie,s > Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other > questions resulted from het revised text. > Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards > Kavousd > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: > Dear all > > I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which > probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions > we were having yesterday. > > A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any > community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad > and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community > decisions which are relevant to it. > > This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was > directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant. > > Regards > > Jorge > > Von: > accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil > it > y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: > accountability-c> > ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a > cc > oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil > it > y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> > tability-cr> > oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. > or > g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou > nc > es@icann.org>>> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc > ou > nta > bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr > os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja > Wolman > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 > An: 'CCWG Accountability' > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> > -cross-com> > munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> > Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation > 1 and 11 issues > > Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all > > Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in > order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the > proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by > Becky (email of 2 > February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion: > > ³ > Burr Proposal: > > > ? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of > Paragraph 23. > > > > The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the > Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community > power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s > implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the > Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in > community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will > not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to > initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise > a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN > Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a > mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice > supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting > the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause > ICANN to violate its Bylaws.² > > However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text > suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is > that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision > based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it > refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision > based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) > should be the text to be considered at today¹s call. > > Best regards, > > > Finn and Julia > > > > Julia Katja Wolman > > DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY > > Dahlerups Pakhus > Langelinie Allé 17 > DK-2100 København Ø > Telephone: +45 3529 1000 > Direct: +45 35291308 > E-mail: > jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto > :j > ukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukac > z@erst.dk<mailto:z@erst.dk>>> > > http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v > 2/ > url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint. > co > m/v2/url> > ?u=http- > 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d > =C wIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif > zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioS > UB > 1PW > w > WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= > > > MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH > > P Please consider the environment before printing this email. > > > > > > Fra: > accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil > it > y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: > accountability-c> > ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a > cc > oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil > it > y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> > tability-cr> > oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. > or > g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou > nc > es@icann.org>>> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc > ou > nta > bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr > os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky > Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 > Til: Kavouss Arasteh; > accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros > s- > com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun > ta > bility-cross-com> > munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab > il > ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 > cm > ailto:accountability> > -cross-comm> > unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>; > Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía > Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and > 11 issues > > Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been > working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a > consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to > resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am > supportive of this package deal, as described below (the > description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I > appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table > and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus! > > > 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 > · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: > > The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the > Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community > power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s > implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free > to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, > but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed > thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a > Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This > carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work > with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to > implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in > Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. > · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out > and add the following language to cover situations that would > otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: > > The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where > the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the > community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s > implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in > support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in > support and no more than one objects. > 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of > GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority > requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the > standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. > 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 > February) > > * Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above > as first final reading; > * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above > as first final reading; and > * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above > as first final reading. > 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd > final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, > noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach > consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on > Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). > > > > J. Beckwith Burr > Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer > 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 > Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / > neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz><http://www.neus > ta r.biz<http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz>> > > From: Kavouss Arasteh > <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: > ka > vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto > :k > avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail. com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>
> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM > To: Accountability Community > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> > -cross-com> > munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> >> , > Becky Burr > <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky. > bu > rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:becky.burr <mailto:becky.burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:becky .burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill > <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. > Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert > <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert > .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez > Ambía > <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli > pe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli pe@sanchez.mx>>> > Subject: <no subject> > > > Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues > > First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: > We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a > coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of > assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some > adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the > Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in > advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA > stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is > working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual > meetings, > > I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we > need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible > set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely > insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single > SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to > the extent practiceable and possible the entire community. > > We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well > as those of Recommendation 11 > > We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the > interested parties together. > > However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network > connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of > the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the > entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection. > > We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last > kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last > kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area > > We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our > current position which is different from each other and not rule > out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession > towards each other position .We need to take every possible > initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability. > > Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a > participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should > really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently > > To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be > accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ > decomposed . > > The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical > > 1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by > Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. > Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the > Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No > other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. > Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be > held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is > a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the > CCWG to take it as it is > > I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are > of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that > my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming > change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard > procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the > compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb > and > 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. > Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested > clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or > standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly > necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it. > > Package Deal > > 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 > > > > · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: > > > > The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the > Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community > power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s > implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free > to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, > but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed > thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a > Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This > carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work > with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to > implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in > Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. > > > > · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out > and add the following language to cover situations that would > otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: > > > > The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where > the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the > community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s > implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in > support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in > support and no more than one objects. > > > > 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of > GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority > requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the > standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. > > > > 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 > February) > > > > · Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above > as first final reading; > > · Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above > as first final reading; and > > · Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described > above as first final reading. > > > > 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd > final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, > noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach > consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on > Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). > > Kavouss > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros > s- > Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun > ta > bility-Cross-Com> > munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab > il > ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 > cm > ailto:Accountability> > -Cross-Comm> > unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m > ai > lma > n > _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET > eD > ALC > _ > lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 > Ho > zbe > O > ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w > C7 > M&e > = > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ > ma > ilm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lm%0b>>>>a > n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIE > Te > DAL > C > _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7- > 2H > ozb > e > OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X- > wC > 7M& > e > = > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros > s- > Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun > ta > bility-Cross-Com> > munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab > il > ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 > cm > ailto:Accountability> > -Cross-Comm> > unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m > ai > lma > n > _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET > eD > ALC > _ > lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 > Ho > zbe > O > ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w > C7 > M&e > = > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros > s- > Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun > ta > bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m > ai > lma > n > _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET > eD > ALC > _ > lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 > Ho > zbe > O > ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w > C7 > M&e > = _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross -C omm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Account ab ility-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma il man _ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD AL C_l U Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hoz be OZX Y oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C ommunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <GNSO Council Response to CCWG-Accountability - FINAL - 22 January 2016.pdf>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear co-chairs I agree that these questions are fully pertinent and a full answer a prerequisite for any meaningful debate on the proposal made by Becky. best regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 06.02.2016 um 12:16 schrieb Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Co-Chairs Rafael request is legitimate I fully support test perhaps if the Co-Chairs agree, it could be studied during the week-end in preparation of our Monday Call Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 6 Feb 2016, at 11:32, Perez Galindo, Rafael <RPEREZGA@minetur.es> wrote:
Dear Co-chairs,
Det me draw your attention to the latest developments in the discussions regarding Rec 11 (former ST 18), namely the carve-out system put forward by Becky and backed by the GNSO.
While thanking Becky for this proposal, I believe we can all agree to acknowledge that the carve-out is not a mere adjustment, nor a tweak to complete or shape a package of measures, but it constitutes a major essential change, for it actually regulates the functioning of the EC with regards to the GAC, and could raise important political and legal concerns.
Hence, and prior to any possible endorsement, I kindly ask that a detailed legal analisys of the proposed text be commissioned to the Legal assistance by the Co-Chairs:
- who would decide whether the carve-out is applicable to a certain issue to be subject to a community decision
- according to what standard would that decision be taken? For instance: is it enough if Board mentions GAC Advice in its rationale as a source for its decision. Or would a substantial test be applied, i.e. checked whether the Board decision follows GAC Advice? In the latter case, would the carve-out also apply if the GAC Advice is only partially followed?
- what means of redress would be available for any party not in agreement with such a decision?
- would the GAC, according to this wording, be able to participate fully in the decision-making of the community mechanism on the following topics?:
1. Any Board decision on policies or implementation of delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs, which would be taken. having regard, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs)
2. Any Board decision on policy or implementation of new gTLDs, which would also take into consideration, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on new gTLDs)
Thank you and best regards
Rafael
________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of James Gannon [james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: 05 February 2016 21:15 To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; kdrazek@verisign.com Cc: thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Jorge, I think at this point the GAC needs to go back and consider the proposition that is on the table the the GNSO appears to be in a position to support.
We do not have the timelines available to us to continue to argue over this, the GNSO has come to rough support on a position now, I feel its time for the GAC to go back to its own processes with this proposition to evaluate it. We are all aware of the GACs wants in this, but that does not mean that the GNSO community will agree to them as we have laid out in our comments to the 3rd Draft proposal.
I feel that if we keep going around in circles over what the GNSO and GAC are potentially able to negotiate we will never end this process, and I think we all want to attempt to bring this to a close ASAP. I hope that the GAC can continue to show its flexibility and ability to compromise and work together with the broad community on this, no-one is setting out to disenfranchise any stakeholder group here, we are all trying to make this the least bad solution that we can all agree on. On this point no-one is winning and no-one is losing.
-James
On 05/02/2016, 8:03 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Keith
Thank you very much for this full text of the gnso input.
I'm aware if the concerns expressed by the gnso, and as I have said several times, I consider them legitimate and relevant, although we may have different opinions on their degree of impact or the means to address them.
At the same time we all know that the GAC came a long way to reach a consensus input on the then ST18, now rec11. And such difficulties were based on concerns from a relevant number of governments whose concerns I feel we should also consider legitimate and worth consideration.
Rec11 was then based on a compromise, which still raised concerns from sectors of the gnso and from a number of governments.
I think the solution is not to privilege parts of the community in reaching a solution.
We need to take on board as many stakeholders and constituencies as possible.
In the last weeks we agreed, we all agreed, to take up important points made by the gnso on rec11: clarify that the Board has no new obligations, the obligation of a clear rationale, the clarification that Board decisions always have to be consistent with Bylaws, irrespective of the source of the advice on which such a decision is based.
On rec10 we also made additions to address concerns expressed around the accountability review of the GAC.
And again on rec11 -as I also said- I felt that Becky's initial proposal (at least as some of us understood it) was one possible means. And I think that if we narrow it down to the community IRP it could work.
But to word it in such broad terms as it is now has the effect I have repeatedly described. Our lawyers could analyze the scooe of such an exception and advise us.
If we agree that the GAC is a legitimate participant in the community mechanism, as we habe repeatedly and consistently agreed, then we cannot favour an overbroad carve-out, because the GAC would not be able to participate on an equal footing in the community mechanism.
In such case we need to clarify and word the carve-out in such terms that it is clear that we just want a very narrow carve-out and that this will not prevent the GAC from normally participating in the community mechanism, with a few exceptions.
If the intention is to have a broad carve-out, then we would not be able to agree.
But I hope that we are in the first case.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Thanks Jorge,
A majority of the GNSO's constituent groups view the combination of Rec-1, Rec-10 and Rec-11 as "interlinked." The majority of GNSO groups (sufficient to reject) view ANY change of Board voting threshold for GAC consensus advice to be highly problematic. The GNSO's willingness to consider and accept Kavouss' suggested compromise of 60% is entirely dependent upon the further clarifications suggested by Becky in the Arasteh/Burr proposal.
I've attached the GNSO Council comments, which are a summary of the GNSO groups comments, for your further review. Here are the relevant texts:
From the GNSO Comments on Rec-1:
"Some in the GNSO have identified a clear link with Recommendations #10 & #11 and are of the view that the current balance between SO/ACs needs to be preserved in the Empowered Community, especially with respect to the GAC." [This means the status quo should be maintained -- the GAC should remain advisory and not have a decisional role.]
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-10:
"There are some concerns within the GNSO with the top down nature of accountability reviews, and the exemption of the GAC from this community requirement. It is also troubling that the GAC, further empowered if Recommendations #1 and #11 are adopted, would be exempted from the same periodic reviews as the other SO/ACs. All participants in the Community Mechanism should be subject to equivalent accountability reviews."
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-11:
"There is broad opposition to this recommendation as written. Most SG/Cs do not support the proposal to raise the threshold for a Board vote to reject GAC advice. All expressed serious concerns over the lack of specificity in the recommendation in relation to the requirements for GAC advice (such as the provision of rationale) and the possibility that this recommendation, if adopted, could unduly change the nature of the Board-GAC relationship and/or the position of the GAC vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs also believe that any CCWG recommendation on this topic should retain the current flexibility in the Bylaws where the Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in order to reject GAC advice."
"IPC, NCSG and the Registrars SG expressly objected to changing and specifying the threshold for Board action; the Registries SG and ISPCP Constituency did not object expressly but highlighted significant concerns about the implications of such a change. The Registries SG stated it was unlikely to support the 2/3 threshold for Board action unless three additional requirements (provision of a rationale, consistency with ICANN bylaws and within GAC scope, and defined consensus) applied to such GAC Advice. While BC and NPOC supported the change, both nevertheless also noted concerns over the implications, with the BC's support expressly conditioned upon certain qualifications being made to the proposal."
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 2:16 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements?
The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right?
Best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Dear Jorge,
Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations.
The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it.
If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute.
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
This is an interesting question.
But what we have on the table is the third draft report.
This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some gnso members (who have proposed this)
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object?
Regards, Keith
From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM To: James M. Bladel; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; Drazek, Keith Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c ommunity@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either.
Best Rafael
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.
-------- Original message -------- From: "James M. Bladel" Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00) To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c ommunity@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Hello Jorge -
Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC?
Thanks-
J.
On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com%3cmailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbr an chc <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b>>onsulting.com<http://onsulting.com>>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbra nc hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rose nz weig@redbranchco> nsulting.com<http://nsulting.com>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:B ec ky.Burr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavall i@ gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>> <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / +neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>> wrote:
> Brett > there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga > >> El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett >> <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mai >> lt >> o:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> >> escribió: >> >> Kavouss, >> >> Becky responded to this yesterday: >> >> Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table >> when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to >> Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email >> demonstrating this. >> >> I expect she will follow up soon. >> >> Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the >> GAC carve out to IRP. >> >> I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, >> but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of >> Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday. >> >> If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve >> this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have >> arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it. >> >> Best, >> >> Brett >> >> >> >> On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh >> <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: >> ka >> vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto >> :k >> avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>> wrote: >> >> Dear Beckie >> As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have >> serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in >> the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and >> send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current >> text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED >> TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. >> As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be >> more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr >> revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial >> text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. >> Awaiting your action , I remain >> Regards >> Kavousd >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, >> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> >> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: >> >> Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky >> >> This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to >> (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged): >> >> == >> >> Von: >> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil >> it >> y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: >> accountability-c> >> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a >> cc >> oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil >> it >> y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> >> tability-cr> >> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. >> or >> g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou >> nc >> es@icann.org>>> >> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc >> ou >> nta >> bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro >> ss >> -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr >> os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky >> Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 >> An: Greg Shatan >> <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:greg >> sh >> atanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregsha >> t <mailto:gregshat%0b>>>>anipc@gmail.com<mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, >> Milton L >> <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.ed >> u% 3cmailto:milton@gatech.edu>><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<ma <mailto:milton@gatech.edu%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton@gatech.edu<http://gat ech.edu>>>> >> Cc: >> accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros >> s- >> com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun >> ta >> bility-cross-com> >> munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab >> il >> ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 >> cm >> ailto:accountability> >> -cross-comm> >> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> >> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, >> GAC consensus, and finishing >> >> I have a proposal for discussion. >> >> Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only >> consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we >> accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC >> cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of >> community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. >> In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than >> two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the >> Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of >> ICANN¹s Mission. >> >> I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might >> otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the >> 2/3rds rejection threshold. >> >> Just a thought - >> >> === >> >> Regards >> >> Jorge >> >> >> ________________________________ >> 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 >> >> http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http >> -3 >> A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u >> =h >> ttp-3A__> >> heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq 8M o8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm 6X _GRlaq8Mo8T> jDmrxdYa >> hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolh >> J2 >> mGN >> u >> 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > >> Von: Kavouss Arasteh >> [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< >> ma >> ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> >> ] >> Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 >> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM >> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> >> Cc: >> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: >> jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> >> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: >> jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; >> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro >> ss >> -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> >> -cross-com> >> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> >> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro >> ss >> -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> >> -cross-com> >> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> >>> ; >> Becky Burr >> <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky. >> Bu >> rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:Becky.Burr <mailto:Becky.Burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:Becky .Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert >> <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert >> .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill >> <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. >> Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe >> Sánchez Ambía >> <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli >> pe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli pe@sanchez.mx>>>; >> Schneider Thomas BAKOM >> <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin. >> ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider >> @b >> akom.admin.ch>> >> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bak >> om >> .ad <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bako m.ad%0b>>>>min.ch<http://min.ch>>>> >> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve >> Recommendation >> 1 and 11 issues >> >> Dear Beckie, >> Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member >> requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial >> Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page >> deal" if includes your original text. >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, >> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> >> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: >> Dear Kavouss >> >> In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of >> community >> IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many >> concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations. >> >> Regards >> >> Jorge >> >> Von: Kavouss Arasteh >> [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< >> ma >> ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> >> ] >> Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 >> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM >> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> >> Cc: >> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: >> jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> >> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: >> jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; >> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro >> ss >> -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> >> -cross-com> >> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> >> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro >> ss >> -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> >> -cross-com> >> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> >> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation >> 1 and 11 issues >> >> Dear All, >> Why Not taking initial Beckie,s >> Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other >> questions resulted from het revised text. >> Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards >> Kavousd >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, >> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> >> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: >> Dear all >> >> I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which >> probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions >> we were having yesterday. >> >> A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any >> community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad >> and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community >> decisions which are relevant to it. >> >> This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was >> directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant. >> >> Regards >> >> Jorge >> >> Von: >> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil >> it >> y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: >> accountability-c> >> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a >> cc >> oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil >> it >> y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> >> tability-cr> >> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. >> or >> g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou >> nc >> es@icann.org>>> >> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc >> ou >> nta >> bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro >> ss >> -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr >> os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja >> Wolman >> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 >> An: 'CCWG Accountability' >> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro >> ss >> -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> >> -cross-com> >> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> >> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation >> 1 and 11 issues >> >> Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all >> >> Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in >> order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the >> proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by >> Becky (email of 2 >> February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion: >> >> ³ >> Burr Proposal: >> >> >> ? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of >> Paragraph 23. >> >> >> >> The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the >> Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community >> power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s >> implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the >> Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in >> community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will >> not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to >> initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise >> a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN >> Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a >> mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice >> supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting >> the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause >> ICANN to violate its Bylaws.² >> >> However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text >> suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is >> that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision >> based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it >> refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision >> based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) >> should be the text to be considered at today¹s call. >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Finn and Julia >> >> >> >> Julia Katja Wolman >> >> DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY >> >> Dahlerups Pakhus >> Langelinie Allé 17 >> DK-2100 København Ø >> Telephone: +45 3529 1000 >> Direct: +45 35291308 >> E-mail: >> jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto >> :j >> ukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukac >> z@erst.dk<mailto:z@erst.dk>>> >> >> http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v >> 2/ >> url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint. >> co >> m/v2/url> >> ?u=http- >> 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d >> =C wIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif >> zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioS >> UB >> 1PW >> w >> WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= > >> >> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH >> >> P Please consider the environment before printing this email. >> >> >> >> >> >> Fra: >> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil >> it >> y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: >> accountability-c> >> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a >> cc >> oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil >> it >> y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> >> tability-cr> >> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. >> or >> g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou >> nc >> es@icann.org>>> >> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc >> ou >> nta >> bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro >> ss >> -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr >> os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky >> Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 >> Til: Kavouss Arasteh; >> accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros >> s- >> com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun >> ta >> bility-cross-com> >> munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab >> il >> ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 >> cm >> ailto:accountability> >> -cross-comm> >> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>; >> Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía >> Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and >> 11 issues >> >> Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been >> working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a >> consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to >> resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am >> supportive of this package deal, as described below (the >> description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I >> appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table >> and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus! >> >> >> 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 >> · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: >> >> The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the >> Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community >> power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s >> implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free >> to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, >> but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed >> thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a >> Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This >> carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work >> with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to >> implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in >> Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. >> · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out >> and add the following language to cover situations that would >> otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: >> >> The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where >> the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the >> community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s >> implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in >> support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in >> support and no more than one objects. >> 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of >> GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority >> requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the >> standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. >> 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 >> February) >> >> * Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above >> as first final reading; >> * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above >> as first final reading; and >> * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above >> as first final reading. >> 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd >> final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, >> noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach >> consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on >> Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). >> >> >> >> J. Beckwith Burr >> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer >> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 >> Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / >> neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz><http://www.neus >> ta r.biz<http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz>> >> >> From: Kavouss Arasteh >> <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: >> ka >> vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto >> :k >> avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail. com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>
>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM >> To: Accountability Community >> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro >> ss >> -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> >> -cross-com> >> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> >>> , >> Becky Burr >> <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky. >> bu >> rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:becky.burr <mailto:becky.burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:becky .burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill >> <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. >> Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert >> <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert >> .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez >> Ambía >> <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli >> pe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli pe@sanchez.mx>>> >> Subject: <no subject> >> >> >> Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues >> >> First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: >> We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a >> coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of >> assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some >> adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the >> Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in >> advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA >> stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is >> working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual >> meetings, >> >> I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we >> need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible >> set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely >> insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single >> SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to >> the extent practiceable and possible the entire community. >> >> We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well >> as those of Recommendation 11 >> >> We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the >> interested parties together. >> >> However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network >> connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of >> the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the >> entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection. >> >> We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last >> kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last >> kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area >> >> We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our >> current position which is different from each other and not rule >> out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession >> towards each other position .We need to take every possible >> initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability. >> >> Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a >> participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should >> really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently >> >> To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be >> accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ >> decomposed . >> >> The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical >> >> 1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by >> Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. >> Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the >> Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No >> other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. >> Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be >> held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is >> a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the >> CCWG to take it as it is >> >> I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are >> of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that >> my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming >> change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard >> procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the >> compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb >> and >> 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. >> Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested >> clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or >> standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly >> necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it. >> >> Package Deal >> >> 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 >> >> >> >> · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: >> >> >> >> The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the >> Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community >> power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s >> implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free >> to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, >> but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed >> thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a >> Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This >> carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work >> with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to >> implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in >> Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. >> >> >> >> · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out >> and add the following language to cover situations that would >> otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: >> >> >> >> The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where >> the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the >> community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s >> implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in >> support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in >> support and no more than one objects. >> >> >> >> 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of >> GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority >> requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the >> standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. >> >> >> >> 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 >> February) >> >> >> >> · Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above >> as first final reading; >> >> · Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above >> as first final reading; and >> >> · Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described >> above as first final reading. >> >> >> >> 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd >> final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, >> noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach >> consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on >> Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). >> >> Kavouss >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> >> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros >> s- >> Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun >> ta >> bility-Cross-Com> >> munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab >> il >> ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 >> cm >> ailto:Accountability> >> -Cross-Comm> >> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m >> ai >> lma >> n >> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET >> eD >> ALC >> _ >> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 >> Ho >> zbe >> O >> ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w >> C7 >> M&e >> = >> >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ >> ma >> ilm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lm%0b>>>>a >> n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIE >> Te >> DAL >> C >> _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7- >> 2H >> ozb >> e >> OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X- >> wC >> 7M& >> e >> = > >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> >> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros >> s- >> Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun >> ta >> bility-Cross-Com> >> munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab >> il >> ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 >> cm >> ailto:Accountability> >> -Cross-Comm> >> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m >> ai >> lma >> n >> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET >> eD >> ALC >> _ >> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 >> Ho >> zbe >> O >> ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w >> C7 >> M&e >> = >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> >> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros >> s- >> Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun >> ta >> bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>> >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m >> ai >> lma >> n >> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET >> eD >> ALC >> _ >> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 >> Ho >> zbe >> O >> ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w >> C7 >> M&e >> = > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross > -C > omm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Account > ab > ility-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma > il > man > _ > listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD > AL > C_l > U > Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hoz > be > OZX > Y > oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& > e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C ommunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <GNSO Council Response to CCWG-Accountability - FINAL - 22 January 2016.pdf>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear co- chais, Argentina shares the same concerns expressed by Rafael from Spain. Best regards Olga Enviado desde mi iPad
El 6 feb 2016, a las 7:32 a.m., Perez Galindo, Rafael <RPEREZGA@minetur.es> escribió:
Dear Co-chairs,
Det me draw your attention to the latest developments in the discussions regarding Rec 11 (former ST 18), namely the carve-out system put forward by Becky and backed by the GNSO.
While thanking Becky for this proposal, I believe we can all agree to acknowledge that the carve-out is not a mere adjustment, nor a tweak to complete or shape a package of measures, but it constitutes a major essential change, for it actually regulates the functioning of the EC with regards to the GAC, and could raise important political and legal concerns.
Hence, and prior to any possible endorsement, I kindly ask that a detailed legal analisys of the proposed text be commissioned to the Legal assistance by the Co-Chairs:
- who would decide whether the carve-out is applicable to a certain issue to be subject to a community decision
- according to what standard would that decision be taken? For instance: is it enough if Board mentions GAC Advice in its rationale as a source for its decision. Or would a substantial test be applied, i.e. checked whether the Board decision follows GAC Advice? In the latter case, would the carve-out also apply if the GAC Advice is only partially followed?
- what means of redress would be available for any party not in agreement with such a decision?
- would the GAC, according to this wording, be able to participate fully in the decision-making of the community mechanism on the following topics?:
1. Any Board decision on policies or implementation of delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs, which would be taken. having regard, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs)
2. Any Board decision on policy or implementation of new gTLDs, which would also take into consideration, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on new gTLDs)
Thank you and best regards
Rafael
________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of James Gannon [james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: 05 February 2016 21:15 To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; kdrazek@verisign.com Cc: thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Jorge, I think at this point the GAC needs to go back and consider the proposition that is on the table the the GNSO appears to be in a position to support.
We do not have the timelines available to us to continue to argue over this, the GNSO has come to rough support on a position now, I feel its time for the GAC to go back to its own processes with this proposition to evaluate it. We are all aware of the GACs wants in this, but that does not mean that the GNSO community will agree to them as we have laid out in our comments to the 3rd Draft proposal.
I feel that if we keep going around in circles over what the GNSO and GAC are potentially able to negotiate we will never end this process, and I think we all want to attempt to bring this to a close ASAP. I hope that the GAC can continue to show its flexibility and ability to compromise and work together with the broad community on this, no-one is setting out to disenfranchise any stakeholder group here, we are all trying to make this the least bad solution that we can all agree on. On this point no-one is winning and no-one is losing.
-James
On 05/02/2016, 8:03 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Keith
Thank you very much for this full text of the gnso input.
I'm aware if the concerns expressed by the gnso, and as I have said several times, I consider them legitimate and relevant, although we may have different opinions on their degree of impact or the means to address them.
At the same time we all know that the GAC came a long way to reach a consensus input on the then ST18, now rec11. And such difficulties were based on concerns from a relevant number of governments whose concerns I feel we should also consider legitimate and worth consideration.
Rec11 was then based on a compromise, which still raised concerns from sectors of the gnso and from a number of governments.
I think the solution is not to privilege parts of the community in reaching a solution.
We need to take on board as many stakeholders and constituencies as possible.
In the last weeks we agreed, we all agreed, to take up important points made by the gnso on rec11: clarify that the Board has no new obligations, the obligation of a clear rationale, the clarification that Board decisions always have to be consistent with Bylaws, irrespective of the source of the advice on which such a decision is based.
On rec10 we also made additions to address concerns expressed around the accountability review of the GAC.
And again on rec11 -as I also said- I felt that Becky's initial proposal (at least as some of us understood it) was one possible means. And I think that if we narrow it down to the community IRP it could work.
But to word it in such broad terms as it is now has the effect I have repeatedly described. Our lawyers could analyze the scooe of such an exception and advise us.
If we agree that the GAC is a legitimate participant in the community mechanism, as we habe repeatedly and consistently agreed, then we cannot favour an overbroad carve-out, because the GAC would not be able to participate on an equal footing in the community mechanism.
In such case we need to clarify and word the carve-out in such terms that it is clear that we just want a very narrow carve-out and that this will not prevent the GAC from normally participating in the community mechanism, with a few exceptions.
If the intention is to have a broad carve-out, then we would not be able to agree.
But I hope that we are in the first case.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Thanks Jorge,
A majority of the GNSO's constituent groups view the combination of Rec-1, Rec-10 and Rec-11 as "interlinked." The majority of GNSO groups (sufficient to reject) view ANY change of Board voting threshold for GAC consensus advice to be highly problematic. The GNSO's willingness to consider and accept Kavouss' suggested compromise of 60% is entirely dependent upon the further clarifications suggested by Becky in the Arasteh/Burr proposal.
I've attached the GNSO Council comments, which are a summary of the GNSO groups comments, for your further review. Here are the relevant texts:
From the GNSO Comments on Rec-1:
"Some in the GNSO have identified a clear link with Recommendations #10 & #11 and are of the view that the current balance between SO/ACs needs to be preserved in the Empowered Community, especially with respect to the GAC." [This means the status quo should be maintained -- the GAC should remain advisory and not have a decisional role.]
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-10:
"There are some concerns within the GNSO with the top down nature of accountability reviews, and the exemption of the GAC from this community requirement. It is also troubling that the GAC, further empowered if Recommendations #1 and #11 are adopted, would be exempted from the same periodic reviews as the other SO/ACs. All participants in the Community Mechanism should be subject to equivalent accountability reviews."
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-11:
"There is broad opposition to this recommendation as written. Most SG/Cs do not support the proposal to raise the threshold for a Board vote to reject GAC advice. All expressed serious concerns over the lack of specificity in the recommendation in relation to the requirements for GAC advice (such as the provision of rationale) and the possibility that this recommendation, if adopted, could unduly change the nature of the Board-GAC relationship and/or the position of the GAC vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs also believe that any CCWG recommendation on this topic should retain the current flexibility in the Bylaws where the Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in order to reject GAC advice."
"IPC, NCSG and the Registrars SG expressly objected to changing and specifying the threshold for Board action; the Registries SG and ISPCP Constituency did not object expressly but highlighted significant concerns about the implications of such a change. The Registries SG stated it was unlikely to support the 2/3 threshold for Board action unless three additional requirements (provision of a rationale, consistency with ICANN bylaws and within GAC scope, and defined consensus) applied to such GAC Advice. While BC and NPOC supported the change, both nevertheless also noted concerns over the implications, with the BC's support expressly conditioned upon certain qualifications being made to the proposal."
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 2:16 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements?
The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right?
Best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Dear Jorge,
Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations.
The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it.
If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute.
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
This is an interesting question.
But what we have on the table is the third draft report.
This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some gnso members (who have proposed this)
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object?
Regards, Keith
From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM To: James M. Bladel; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; Drazek, Keith Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c ommunity@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either.
Best Rafael
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.
-------- Original message -------- From: "James M. Bladel" Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00) To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c ommunity@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Hello Jorge -
Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC?
Thanks-
J.
On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com%3cmailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbr an chc <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b>>onsulting.com<http://onsulting.com>>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbra nc hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rose nz weig@redbranchco> nsulting.com<http://nsulting.com>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:B ec ky.Burr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavall i@ gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>> <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / +neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
> El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett > <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mai > lt > o:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> > escribió: > > Kavouss, > > Becky responded to this yesterday: > > Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table > when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to > Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email > demonstrating this. > > I expect she will follow up soon. > > Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the > GAC carve out to IRP. > > I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, > but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of > Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday. > > If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve > this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have > arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it. > > Best, > > Brett > > > > On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh > <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: > ka > vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto > :k > avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>> wrote: > > Dear Beckie > As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have > serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in > the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and > send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current > text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED > TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. > As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be > more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr > revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial > text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. > Awaiting your action , I remain > Regards > Kavousd > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: > > Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky > > This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to > (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged): > > == > > Von: > accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil > it > y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: > accountability-c> > ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a > cc > oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil > it > y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> > tability-cr> > oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. > or > g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou > nc > es@icann.org>>> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc > ou > nta > bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr > os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky > Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 > An: Greg Shatan > <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:greg > sh > atanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregsha > t <mailto:gregshat%0b>>>>anipc@gmail.com<mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, > Milton L > <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.ed > u% 3cmailto:milton@gatech.edu>><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<ma <mailto:milton@gatech.edu%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton@gatech.edu<http://gat ech.edu>>>> > Cc: > accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros > s- > com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun > ta > bility-cross-com> > munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab > il > ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 > cm > ailto:accountability> > -cross-comm> > unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> > Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, > GAC consensus, and finishing > > I have a proposal for discussion. > > Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only > consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we > accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC > cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of > community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. > In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than > two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the > Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of > ICANN¹s Mission. > > I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might > otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the > 2/3rds rejection threshold. > > Just a thought - > > === > > Regards > > Jorge > > > ________________________________ > 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 > > http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http > -3 > A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u > =h > ttp-3A__> > heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq 8M o8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm 6X _GRlaq8Mo8T> jDmrxdYa > hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolh > J2 > mGN > u > 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > > Von: Kavouss Arasteh > [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< > ma > ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> > ] > Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 > An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> > Cc: > <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: > jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> > <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: > jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> > -cross-com> > munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> > -cross-com> > munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> >> ; > Becky Burr > <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky. > Bu > rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:Becky.Burr <mailto:Becky.Burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:Becky .Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert > <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert > .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill > <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. > Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe > Sánchez Ambía > <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli > pe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli pe@sanchez.mx>>>; > Schneider Thomas BAKOM > <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin. > ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider > @b > akom.admin.ch>> > <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bak > om > .ad <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bako m.ad%0b>>>>min.ch<http://min.ch>>>> > Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve > Recommendation > 1 and 11 issues > > Dear Beckie, > Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member > requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial > Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page > deal" if includes your original text. > Regards > Kavouss > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: > Dear Kavouss > > In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of > community > IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many > concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations. > > Regards > > Jorge > > Von: Kavouss Arasteh > [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< > ma > ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> > ] > Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 > An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> > Cc: > <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: > jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> > <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: > jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> > -cross-com> > munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> > -cross-com> > munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> > Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation > 1 and 11 issues > > Dear All, > Why Not taking initial Beckie,s > Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other > questions resulted from het revised text. > Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards > Kavousd > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: > Dear all > > I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which > probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions > we were having yesterday. > > A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any > community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad > and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community > decisions which are relevant to it. > > This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was > directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant. > > Regards > > Jorge > > Von: > accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil > it > y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: > accountability-c> > ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a > cc > oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil > it > y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> > tability-cr> > oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. > or > g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou > nc > es@icann.org>>> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc > ou > nta > bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr > os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja > Wolman > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 > An: 'CCWG Accountability' > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> > -cross-com> > munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> > Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation > 1 and 11 issues > > Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all > > Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in > order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the > proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by > Becky (email of 2 > February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion: > > ³ > Burr Proposal: > > > ? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of > Paragraph 23. > > > > The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the > Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community > power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s > implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the > Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in > community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will > not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to > initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise > a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN > Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a > mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice > supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting > the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause > ICANN to violate its Bylaws.² > > However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text > suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is > that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision > based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it > refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision > based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) > should be the text to be considered at today¹s call. > > Best regards, > > > Finn and Julia > > > > Julia Katja Wolman > > DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY > > Dahlerups Pakhus > Langelinie Allé 17 > DK-2100 København Ø > Telephone: +45 3529 1000 > Direct: +45 35291308 > E-mail: > jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto > :j > ukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukac > z@erst.dk<mailto:z@erst.dk>>> > > http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v > 2/ > url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint. > co > m/v2/url> > ?u=http- > 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d > =C wIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif > zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioS > UB > 1PW > w > WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= > > > MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH > > P Please consider the environment before printing this email. > > > > > > Fra: > accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil > it > y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: > accountability-c> > ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a > cc > oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil > it > y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> > tability-cr> > oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. > or > g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou > nc > es@icann.org>>> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc > ou > nta > bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr > os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky > Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 > Til: Kavouss Arasteh; > accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros > s- > com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun > ta > bility-cross-com> > munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab > il > ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 > cm > ailto:accountability> > -cross-comm> > unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>; > Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía > Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and > 11 issues > > Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been > working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a > consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to > resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am > supportive of this package deal, as described below (the > description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I > appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table > and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus! > > > 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 > · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: > > The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the > Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community > power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s > implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free > to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, > but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed > thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a > Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This > carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work > with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to > implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in > Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. > · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out > and add the following language to cover situations that would > otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: > > The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where > the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the > community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s > implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in > support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in > support and no more than one objects. > 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of > GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority > requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the > standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. > 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 > February) > > * Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above > as first final reading; > * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above > as first final reading; and > * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above > as first final reading. > 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd > final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, > noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach > consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on > Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). > > > > J. Beckwith Burr > Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer > 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 > Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / > neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz><http://www.neus > ta r.biz<http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz>> > > From: Kavouss Arasteh > <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: > ka > vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto > :k > avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail. com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>
> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM > To: Accountability Community > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> > -cross-com> > munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> >> , > Becky Burr > <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky. > bu > rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:becky.burr <mailto:becky.burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:becky .burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill > <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. > Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert > <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert > .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez > Ambía > <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli > pe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli pe@sanchez.mx>>> > Subject: <no subject> > > > Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues > > First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: > We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a > coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of > assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some > adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the > Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in > advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA > stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is > working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual > meetings, > > I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we > need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible > set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely > insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single > SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to > the extent practiceable and possible the entire community. > > We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well > as those of Recommendation 11 > > We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the > interested parties together. > > However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network > connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of > the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the > entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection. > > We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last > kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last > kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area > > We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our > current position which is different from each other and not rule > out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession > towards each other position .We need to take every possible > initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability. > > Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a > participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should > really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently > > To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be > accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ > decomposed . > > The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical > > 1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by > Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. > Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the > Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No > other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. > Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be > held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is > a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the > CCWG to take it as it is > > I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are > of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that > my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming > change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard > procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the > compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb > and > 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. > Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested > clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or > standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly > necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it. > > Package Deal > > 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 > > > > · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: > > > > The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the > Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community > power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s > implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free > to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, > but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed > thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a > Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This > carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work > with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to > implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in > Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. > > > > · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out > and add the following language to cover situations that would > otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: > > > > The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where > the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the > community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s > implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in > support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in > support and no more than one objects. > > > > 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of > GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority > requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the > standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. > > > > 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 > February) > > > > · Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above > as first final reading; > > · Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above > as first final reading; and > > · Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described > above as first final reading. > > > > 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd > final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, > noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach > consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on > Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). > > Kavouss > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros > s- > Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun > ta > bility-Cross-Com> > munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab > il > ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 > cm > ailto:Accountability> > -Cross-Comm> > unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m > ai > lma > n > _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET > eD > ALC > _ > lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 > Ho > zbe > O > ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w > C7 > M&e > = > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ > ma > ilm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lm%0b>>>>a > n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIE > Te > DAL > C > _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7- > 2H > ozb > e > OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X- > wC > 7M& > e > = > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros > s- > Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun > ta > bility-Cross-Com> > munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab > il > ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 > cm > ailto:Accountability> > -Cross-Comm> > unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m > ai > lma > n > _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET > eD > ALC > _ > lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 > Ho > zbe > O > ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w > C7 > M&e > = > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros > s- > Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun > ta > bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m > ai > lma > n > _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET > eD > ALC > _ > lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 > Ho > zbe > O > ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w > C7 > M&e > = _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross -C omm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Account ab ility-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma il man _ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD AL C_l U Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hoz be OZX Y oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C ommunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <GNSO Council Response to CCWG-Accountability - FINAL - 22 January 2016.pdf>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Rosemary and Holly, This is to certify the review of the questions in the e-mail below. We do know this is extremely short notice, but it would be great if the answers could inform our discussion on this very topic next Monday, February 8th, 12.00 UTC. We do appreciate that time is too short for a written memo, but maybe one of you or team could offer initial answers during the call. I hope to be correct in assuming that you have seen the compromise proposal under consideration with input primarily from Kavouss and Becky. Also, you may find Rafael's previous questions and the answers offered by Becky informative. Should these not be known, please send a note to staff so they can forward them to you. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Thomas --- rickert.net Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail:
Von: "Perez Galindo, Rafael" <RPEREZGA@minetur.es> Datum: 6. Februar 2016 um 11:32:55 MEZ An: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, "kdrazek@verisign.com" <kdrazek@verisign.com> Kopie: "thomas@rickert.net" <thomas@rickert.net>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-chairs,
Det me draw your attention to the latest developments in the discussions regarding Rec 11 (former ST 18), namely the carve-out system put forward by Becky and backed by the GNSO.
While thanking Becky for this proposal, I believe we can all agree to acknowledge that the carve-out is not a mere adjustment, nor a tweak to complete or shape a package of measures, but it constitutes a major essential change, for it actually regulates the functioning of the EC with regards to the GAC, and could raise important political and legal concerns.
Hence, and prior to any possible endorsement, I kindly ask that a detailed legal analisys of the proposed text be commissioned to the Legal assistance by the Co-Chairs:
- who would decide whether the carve-out is applicable to a certain issue to be subject to a community decision
- according to what standard would that decision be taken? For instance: is it enough if Board mentions GAC Advice in its rationale as a source for its decision. Or would a substantial test be applied, i.e. checked whether the Board decision follows GAC Advice? In the latter case, would the carve-out also apply if the GAC Advice is only partially followed?
- what means of redress would be available for any party not in agreement with such a decision?
- would the GAC, according to this wording, be able to participate fully in the decision-making of the community mechanism on the following topics?:
1. Any Board decision on policies or implementation of delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs, which would be taken. having regard, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs)
2. Any Board decision on policy or implementation of new gTLDs, which would also take into consideration, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on new gTLDs)
Thank you and best regards
Rafael
________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of James Gannon [james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: 05 February 2016 21:15 To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; kdrazek@verisign.com Cc: thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Jorge, I think at this point the GAC needs to go back and consider the proposition that is on the table the the GNSO appears to be in a position to support.
We do not have the timelines available to us to continue to argue over this, the GNSO has come to rough support on a position now, I feel its time for the GAC to go back to its own processes with this proposition to evaluate it. We are all aware of the GACs wants in this, but that does not mean that the GNSO community will agree to them as we have laid out in our comments to the 3rd Draft proposal.
I feel that if we keep going around in circles over what the GNSO and GAC are potentially able to negotiate we will never end this process, and I think we all want to attempt to bring this to a close ASAP. I hope that the GAC can continue to show its flexibility and ability to compromise and work together with the broad community on this, no-one is setting out to disenfranchise any stakeholder group here, we are all trying to make this the least bad solution that we can all agree on. On this point no-one is winning and no-one is losing.
-James
On 05/02/2016, 8:03 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Keith
Thank you very much for this full text of the gnso input.
I'm aware if the concerns expressed by the gnso, and as I have said several times, I consider them legitimate and relevant, although we may have different opinions on their degree of impact or the means to address them.
At the same time we all know that the GAC came a long way to reach a consensus input on the then ST18, now rec11. And such difficulties were based on concerns from a relevant number of governments whose concerns I feel we should also consider legitimate and worth consideration.
Rec11 was then based on a compromise, which still raised concerns from sectors of the gnso and from a number of governments.
I think the solution is not to privilege parts of the community in reaching a solution.
We need to take on board as many stakeholders and constituencies as possible.
In the last weeks we agreed, we all agreed, to take up important points made by the gnso on rec11: clarify that the Board has no new obligations, the obligation of a clear rationale, the clarification that Board decisions always have to be consistent with Bylaws, irrespective of the source of the advice on which such a decision is based.
On rec10 we also made additions to address concerns expressed around the accountability review of the GAC.
And again on rec11 -as I also said- I felt that Becky's initial proposal (at least as some of us understood it) was one possible means. And I think that if we narrow it down to the community IRP it could work.
But to word it in such broad terms as it is now has the effect I have repeatedly described. Our lawyers could analyze the scooe of such an exception and advise us.
If we agree that the GAC is a legitimate participant in the community mechanism, as we habe repeatedly and consistently agreed, then we cannot favour an overbroad carve-out, because the GAC would not be able to participate on an equal footing in the community mechanism.
In such case we need to clarify and word the carve-out in such terms that it is clear that we just want a very narrow carve-out and that this will not prevent the GAC from normally participating in the community mechanism, with a few exceptions.
If the intention is to have a broad carve-out, then we would not be able to agree.
But I hope that we are in the first case.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Thanks Jorge,
A majority of the GNSO's constituent groups view the combination of Rec-1, Rec-10 and Rec-11 as "interlinked." The majority of GNSO groups (sufficient to reject) view ANY change of Board voting threshold for GAC consensus advice to be highly problematic. The GNSO's willingness to consider and accept Kavouss' suggested compromise of 60% is entirely dependent upon the further clarifications suggested by Becky in the Arasteh/Burr proposal.
I've attached the GNSO Council comments, which are a summary of the GNSO groups comments, for your further review. Here are the relevant texts:
From the GNSO Comments on Rec-1:
"Some in the GNSO have identified a clear link with Recommendations #10 & #11 and are of the view that the current balance between SO/ACs needs to be preserved in the Empowered Community, especially with respect to the GAC." [This means the status quo should be maintained -- the GAC should remain advisory and not have a decisional role.]
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-10:
"There are some concerns within the GNSO with the top down nature of accountability reviews, and the exemption of the GAC from this community requirement. It is also troubling that the GAC, further empowered if Recommendations #1 and #11 are adopted, would be exempted from the same periodic reviews as the other SO/ACs. All participants in the Community Mechanism should be subject to equivalent accountability reviews."
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-11:
"There is broad opposition to this recommendation as written. Most SG/Cs do not support the proposal to raise the threshold for a Board vote to reject GAC advice. All expressed serious concerns over the lack of specificity in the recommendation in relation to the requirements for GAC advice (such as the provision of rationale) and the possibility that this recommendation, if adopted, could unduly change the nature of the Board-GAC relationship and/or the position of the GAC vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs also believe that any CCWG recommendation on this topic should retain the current flexibility in the Bylaws where the Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in order to reject GAC advice."
"IPC, NCSG and the Registrars SG expressly objected to changing and specifying the threshold for Board action; the Registries SG and ISPCP Constituency did not object expressly but highlighted significant concerns about the implications of such a change. The Registries SG stated it was unlikely to support the 2/3 threshold for Board action unless three additional requirements (provision of a rationale, consistency with ICANN bylaws and within GAC scope, and defined consensus) applied to such GAC Advice. While BC and NPOC supported the change, both nevertheless also noted concerns over the implications, with the BC's support expressly conditioned upon certain qualifications being made to the proposal."
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 2:16 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements?
The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right?
Best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Dear Jorge,
Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations.
The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it.
If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute.
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
This is an interesting question.
But what we have on the table is the third draft report.
This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some gnso members (who have proposed this)
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object?
Regards, Keith
From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM To: James M. Bladel; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; Drazek, Keith Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c ommunity@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either.
Best Rafael
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.
-------- Original message -------- From: "James M. Bladel" Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00) To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c ommunity@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Hello Jorge -
Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC?
Thanks-
J.
On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com%3cmailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbr an chc <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b>>onsulting.com<http://onsulting.com>>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbra nc hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rose nz weig@redbranchco> nsulting.com<http://nsulting.com>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:B ec ky.Burr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavall i@ gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>> <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / +neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
> El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett > <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mai > lt > o:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> > escribió: > > Kavouss, > > Becky responded to this yesterday: > > Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table > when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to > Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email > demonstrating this. > > I expect she will follow up soon. > > Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the > GAC carve out to IRP. > > I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, > but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of > Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday. > > If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve > this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have > arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it. > > Best, > > Brett > > > > On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh > <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: > ka > vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto > :k > avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>> wrote: > > Dear Beckie > As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have > serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in > the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and > send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current > text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED > TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. > As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be > more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr > revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial > text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. > Awaiting your action , I remain > Regards > Kavousd > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: > > Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky > > This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to > (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged): > > == > > Von: > accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil > it > y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: > accountability-c> > ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a > cc > oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil > it > y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> > tability-cr> > oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. > or > g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou > nc > es@icann.org>>> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc > ou > nta > bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr > os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky > Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 > An: Greg Shatan > <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:greg > sh > atanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregsha > t <mailto:gregshat%0b>>>>anipc@gmail.com<mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, > Milton L > <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.ed > u% 3cmailto:milton@gatech.edu>><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<ma <mailto:milton@gatech.edu%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton@gatech.edu<http://gat ech.edu>>>> > Cc: > accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros > s- > com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun > ta > bility-cross-com> > munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab > il > ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 > cm > ailto:accountability> > -cross-comm> > unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> > Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, > GAC consensus, and finishing > > I have a proposal for discussion. > > Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only > consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we > accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC > cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of > community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. > In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than > two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the > Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of > ICANN¹s Mission. > > I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might > otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the > 2/3rds rejection threshold. > > Just a thought - > > === > > Regards > > Jorge > > > ________________________________ > 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 > > http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http > -3 > A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u > =h > ttp-3A__> > heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq 8M o8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm 6X _GRlaq8Mo8T> jDmrxdYa > hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolh > J2 > mGN > u > 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > > Von: Kavouss Arasteh > [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< > ma > ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> > ] > Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 > An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> > Cc: > <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: > jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> > <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: > jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> > -cross-com> > munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> > -cross-com> > munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> >> ; > Becky Burr > <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky. > Bu > rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:Becky.Burr <mailto:Becky.Burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:Becky .Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert > <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert > .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill > <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. > Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe > Sánchez Ambía > <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli > pe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli pe@sanchez.mx>>>; > Schneider Thomas BAKOM > <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin. > ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider > @b > akom.admin.ch>> > <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bak > om > .ad <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bako m.ad%0b>>>>min.ch<http://min.ch>>>> > Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve > Recommendation > 1 and 11 issues > > Dear Beckie, > Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member > requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial > Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page > deal" if includes your original text. > Regards > Kavouss > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: > Dear Kavouss > > In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of > community > IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many > concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations. > > Regards > > Jorge > > Von: Kavouss Arasteh > [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< > ma > ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> > ] > Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 > An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> > Cc: > <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: > jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> > <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: > jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> > -cross-com> > munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> > -cross-com> > munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> > Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation > 1 and 11 issues > > Dear All, > Why Not taking initial Beckie,s > Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other > questions resulted from het revised text. > Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards > Kavousd > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: > Dear all > > I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which > probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions > we were having yesterday. > > A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any > community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad > and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community > decisions which are relevant to it. > > This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was > directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant. > > Regards > > Jorge > > Von: > accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil > it > y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: > accountability-c> > ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a > cc > oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil > it > y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> > tability-cr> > oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. > or > g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou > nc > es@icann.org>>> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc > ou > nta > bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr > os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja > Wolman > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 > An: 'CCWG Accountability' > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> > -cross-com> > munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> > Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation > 1 and 11 issues > > Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all > > Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in > order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the > proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by > Becky (email of 2 > February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion: > > ³ > Burr Proposal: > > > ? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of > Paragraph 23. > > > > The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the > Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community > power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s > implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the > Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in > community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will > not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to > initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise > a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN > Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a > mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice > supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting > the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause > ICANN to violate its Bylaws.² > > However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text > suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is > that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision > based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it > refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision > based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) > should be the text to be considered at today¹s call. > > Best regards, > > > Finn and Julia > > > > Julia Katja Wolman > > DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY > > Dahlerups Pakhus > Langelinie Allé 17 > DK-2100 København Ø > Telephone: +45 3529 1000 > Direct: +45 35291308 > E-mail: > jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto > :j > ukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukac > z@erst.dk<mailto:z@erst.dk>>> > > http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v > 2/ > url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint. > co > m/v2/url> > ?u=http- > 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d > =C wIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif > zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioS > UB > 1PW > w > WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= > > > MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH > > P Please consider the environment before printing this email. > > > > > > Fra: > accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil > it > y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: > accountability-c> > ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a > cc > oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil > it > y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> > tability-cr> > oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. > or > g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou > nc > es@icann.org>>> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc > ou > nta > bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr > os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky > Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 > Til: Kavouss Arasteh; > accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros > s- > com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun > ta > bility-cross-com> > munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab > il > ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 > cm > ailto:accountability> > -cross-comm> > unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>; > Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía > Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and > 11 issues > > Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been > working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a > consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to > resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am > supportive of this package deal, as described below (the > description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I > appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table > and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus! > > > 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 > · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: > > The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the > Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community > power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s > implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free > to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, > but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed > thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a > Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This > carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work > with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to > implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in > Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. > · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out > and add the following language to cover situations that would > otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: > > The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where > the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the > community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s > implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in > support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in > support and no more than one objects. > 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of > GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority > requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the > standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. > 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 > February) > > * Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above > as first final reading; > * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above > as first final reading; and > * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above > as first final reading. > 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd > final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, > noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach > consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on > Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). > > > > J. Beckwith Burr > Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer > 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 > Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / > neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz><http://www.neus > ta r.biz<http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz>> > > From: Kavouss Arasteh > <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: > ka > vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto > :k > avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail. com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>
> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM > To: Accountability Community > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> > -cross-com> > munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> >> , > Becky Burr > <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky. > bu > rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:becky.burr <mailto:becky.burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:becky .burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill > <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. > Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert > <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert > .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez > Ambía > <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli > pe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli pe@sanchez.mx>>> > Subject: <no subject> > > > Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues > > First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: > We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a > coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of > assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some > adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the > Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in > advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA > stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is > working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual > meetings, > > I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we > need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible > set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely > insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single > SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to > the extent practiceable and possible the entire community. > > We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well > as those of Recommendation 11 > > We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the > interested parties together. > > However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network > connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of > the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the > entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection. > > We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last > kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last > kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area > > We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our > current position which is different from each other and not rule > out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession > towards each other position .We need to take every possible > initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability. > > Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a > participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should > really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently > > To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be > accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ > decomposed . > > The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical > > 1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by > Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. > Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the > Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No > other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. > Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be > held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is > a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the > CCWG to take it as it is > > I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are > of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that > my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming > change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard > procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the > compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb > and > 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. > Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested > clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or > standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly > necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it. > > Package Deal > > 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 > > > > · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: > > > > The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the > Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community > power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s > implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free > to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, > but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed > thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a > Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This > carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work > with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to > implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in > Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. > > > > · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out > and add the following language to cover situations that would > otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: > > > > The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where > the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the > community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s > implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in > support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in > support and no more than one objects. > > > > 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of > GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority > requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the > standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. > > > > 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 > February) > > > > · Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above > as first final reading; > > · Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above > as first final reading; and > > · Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described > above as first final reading. > > > > 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd > final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, > noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach > consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on > Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). > > Kavouss > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros > s- > Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun > ta > bility-Cross-Com> > munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab > il > ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 > cm > ailto:Accountability> > -Cross-Comm> > unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m > ai > lma > n > _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET > eD > ALC > _ > lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 > Ho > zbe > O > ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w > C7 > M&e > = > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ > ma > ilm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lm%0b>>>>a > n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIE > Te > DAL > C > _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7- > 2H > ozb > e > OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X- > wC > 7M& > e > = > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros > s- > Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun > ta > bility-Cross-Com> > munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab > il > ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 > cm > ailto:Accountability> > -Cross-Comm> > unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m > ai > lma > n > _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET > eD > ALC > _ > lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 > Ho > zbe > O > ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w > C7 > M&e > = > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros > s- > Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun > ta > bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m > ai > lma > n > _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET > eD > ALC > _ > lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 > Ho > zbe > O > ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w > C7 > M&e > = _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross -C omm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Account ab ility-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma il man _ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD AL C_l U Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hoz be OZX Y oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C ommunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <GNSO Council Response to CCWG-Accountability - FINAL - 22 January 2016.pdf>
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 Thomas, I fully appreiciate your action. I agree with those mentioned we have to move. But to move correctly with all legal support. There are concerns on both sides. We do not want to take any decision without legal support. Dear Holély Dear Rosemary. Your very careful and indepth analysis will be a historical record in the entire CCWG PROCESS. We came from a vey long journey, a historical one. TILL NOW 82 CALLs and many physical meeting and thousands of e-mail exchanges from very competemnt people . We do not want to be our own's judge. We need external judgement. We are extremly sorry to disturb you at this very late hours.. MANY COMMUNITIES ARE FRUSTRATED from this disputes we want a legal response.. Your analysis will be subject to serious scrutinizing . Pls raed all mails and think of evry word We know you, know your ability, your competence your fir and totally neutral analysis. Pleaswe forget the commenters source and just look at the question and carefully and deeply examine them and bring us a short , precise, consice analysis. WE HAVE SUPPORTED YOU AND WILL SUPPORT YOU. We wto have been criticised unfairly because we just submit compromise. We might have been wrong. pls correcrt us. Even we have been criticised why we ask everybody to tolerate..But we still believe that we need a finalized our work before end of February Regards Kavouiss Kavouiss Kavouss 2016-02-06 22:03 GMT+01:00 Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>:
Dear Rosemary and Holly, This is to certify the review of the questions in the e-mail below. We do know this is extremely short notice, but it would be great if the answers could inform our discussion on this very topic next Monday, February 8th, 12.00 UTC. We do appreciate that time is too short for a written memo, but maybe one of you or team could offer initial answers during the call.
I hope to be correct in assuming that you have seen the compromise proposal under consideration with input primarily from Kavouss and Becky. Also, you may find Rafael's previous questions and the answers offered by Becky informative. Should these not be known, please send a note to staff so they can forward them to you.
Thank you very much.
Kind regards, Thomas
--- rickert.net
Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail:
*Von:* "Perez Galindo, Rafael" <RPEREZGA@minetur.es> *Datum:* 6. Februar 2016 um 11:32:55 MEZ *An:* James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, "kdrazek@verisign.com" < kdrazek@verisign.com> *Kopie:* "thomas@rickert.net" <thomas@rickert.net>, " accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Betreff:* *RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues*
Dear Co-chairs,
Det me draw your attention to the latest developments in the discussions regarding Rec 11 (former ST 18), namely the carve-out system put forward by Becky and backed by the GNSO.
While thanking Becky for this proposal, I believe we can all agree to acknowledge that the carve-out is not a mere adjustment, nor a tweak to complete or shape a package of measures, but it constitutes a major essential change, for it actually regulates the functioning of the EC with regards to the GAC, and could raise important political and legal concerns.
Hence, and prior to any possible endorsement, I kindly ask that a detailed legal analisys of the proposed text be commissioned to the Legal assistance by the Co-Chairs:
- who would decide whether the carve-out is applicable to a certain issue to be subject to a community decision
- according to what standard would that decision be taken? For instance: is it enough if Board mentions GAC Advice in its rationale as a source for its decision. Or would a substantial test be applied, i.e. checked whether the Board decision follows GAC Advice? In the latter case, would the carve-out also apply if the GAC Advice is only partially followed?
- what means of redress would be available for any party not in agreement with such a decision?
- would the GAC, according to this wording, be able to participate fully in the decision-making of the community mechanism on the following topics?:
1. Any Board decision on policies or implementation of delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs, which would be taken. having regard, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs)
2. Any Board decision on policy or implementation of new gTLDs, which would also take into consideration, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on new gTLDs)
Thank you and best regards
Rafael
________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of James Gannon [james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: 05 February 2016 21:15 To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; kdrazek@verisign.com Cc: thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Jorge, I think at this point the GAC needs to go back and consider the proposition that is on the table the the GNSO appears to be in a position to support.
We do not have the timelines available to us to continue to argue over this, the GNSO has come to rough support on a position now, I feel its time for the GAC to go back to its own processes with this proposition to evaluate it. We are all aware of the GACs wants in this, but that does not mean that the GNSO community will agree to them as we have laid out in our comments to the 3rd Draft proposal.
I feel that if we keep going around in circles over what the GNSO and GAC are potentially able to negotiate we will never end this process, and I think we all want to attempt to bring this to a close ASAP. I hope that the GAC can continue to show its flexibility and ability to compromise and work together with the broad community on this, no-one is setting out to disenfranchise any stakeholder group here, we are all trying to make this the least bad solution that we can all agree on. On this point no-one is winning and no-one is losing.
-James
On 05/02/2016, 8:03 p.m., " accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" < accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Keith
Thank you very much for this full text of the gnso input.
I'm aware if the concerns expressed by the gnso, and as I have said several times, I consider them legitimate and relevant, although we may have different opinions on their degree of impact or the means to address them.
At the same time we all know that the GAC came a long way to reach a consensus input on the then ST18, now rec11. And such difficulties were based on concerns from a relevant number of governments whose concerns I feel we should also consider legitimate and worth consideration.
Rec11 was then based on a compromise, which still raised concerns from sectors of the gnso and from a number of governments.
I think the solution is not to privilege parts of the community in reaching a solution.
We need to take on board as many stakeholders and constituencies as possible.
In the last weeks we agreed, we all agreed, to take up important points made by the gnso on rec11: clarify that the Board has no new obligations, the obligation of a clear rationale, the clarification that Board decisions always have to be consistent with Bylaws, irrespective of the source of the advice on which such a decision is based.
On rec10 we also made additions to address concerns expressed around the accountability review of the GAC.
And again on rec11 -as I also said- I felt that Becky's initial proposal (at least as some of us understood it) was one possible means. And I think that if we narrow it down to the community IRP it could work.
But to word it in such broad terms as it is now has the effect I have repeatedly described. Our lawyers could analyze the scooe of such an exception and advise us.
If we agree that the GAC is a legitimate participant in the community mechanism, as we habe repeatedly and consistently agreed, then we cannot favour an overbroad carve-out, because the GAC would not be able to participate on an equal footing in the community mechanism.
In such case we need to clarify and word the carve-out in such terms that it is clear that we just want a very narrow carve-out and that this will not prevent the GAC from normally participating in the community mechanism, with a few exceptions.
If the intention is to have a broad carve-out, then we would not be able to agree.
But I hope that we are in the first case.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Thanks Jorge,
A majority of the GNSO's constituent groups view the combination of Rec-1, Rec-10 and Rec-11 as "interlinked." The majority of GNSO groups (sufficient to reject) view ANY change of Board voting threshold for GAC consensus advice to be highly problematic. The GNSO's willingness to consider and accept Kavouss' suggested compromise of 60% is entirely dependent upon the further clarifications suggested by Becky in the Arasteh/Burr proposal.
I've attached the GNSO Council comments, which are a summary of the GNSO groups comments, for your further review. Here are the relevant texts:
From the GNSO Comments on Rec-1:
"Some in the GNSO have identified a clear link with Recommendations #10 & #11 and are of the view that the current balance between SO/ACs needs to be preserved in the Empowered Community, especially with respect to the GAC." [This means the status quo should be maintained -- the GAC should remain advisory and not have a decisional role.]
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-10:
"There are some concerns within the GNSO with the top down nature of accountability reviews, and the exemption of the GAC from this community requirement. It is also troubling that the GAC, further empowered if Recommendations #1 and #11 are adopted, would be exempted from the same periodic reviews as the other SO/ACs. All participants in the Community Mechanism should be subject to equivalent accountability reviews."
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-11:
"There is broad opposition to this recommendation as written. Most SG/Cs do not support the proposal to raise the threshold for a Board vote to reject GAC advice. All expressed serious concerns over the
lack of specificity in the recommendation in relation to the requirements for GAC advice (such as the provision of rationale) and the possibility that this recommendation, if adopted, could unduly change the nature of the Board-GAC relationship and/or the position of the GAC vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs also believe that any CCWG recommendation on this topic should retain the current flexibility in the Bylaws where the Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in order to reject GAC advice."
"IPC, NCSG and the Registrars SG expressly objected to changing and specifying the threshold for Board action; the Registries SG and ISPCP Constituency did not object expressly but highlighted significant concerns about the implications of such a change. The Registries SG stated it was unlikely to support the 2/3 threshold for Board action unless three additional requirements (provision of a rationale, consistency with ICANN bylaws and within GAC scope, and defined consensus) applied to such GAC Advice. While BC and NPOC supported the change, both nevertheless also noted concerns over the implications, with the BC's support expressly conditioned upon certain qualifications being made to the proposal."
Regards,
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>]
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 2:16 PM
To: Drazek, Keith
Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements?
The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right?
Best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Dear Jorge,
Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations.
The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it.
If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute.
Regards,
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>]
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM
To: Drazek, Keith
Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
and 11 issues
Dear Keith
This is an interesting question.
But what we have on the table is the third draft report.
This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a
higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the
consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some
gnso members (who have proposed this)
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com< mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <kdrazek@verisign.com>>>:
We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object?
Regards,
Keith
From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es <RPEREZGA@minetur.es>]
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM
To: James M. Bladel;
Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>;
Drazek, Keith
Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>>;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c
ommunity@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
and 11 issues
It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either.
Best
Rafael
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.
-------- Original message --------
From: "James M. Bladel"
Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00)
To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>,
kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <kdrazek@verisign.com>>
Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>>,
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c
ommunity@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
and 11 issues
Hello Jorge -
Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC?
Thanks-
J.
On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%20on%0bbehalf%20of% 20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>"
<accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%20on%20behalf%20of% 0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a
discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and
little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith
<kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <kdrazek@verisign.com>< mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <kdrazek@verisign.com>%3cmailto:kdrazek@ verisign.com>>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives
the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold
to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates
appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way
forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11.
Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards,
Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji
<seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com><mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-).
While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting
right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the
community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and
that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same
level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some
extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain
situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not
give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making
power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto
GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of
the
following:
1. Rejected by board
2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by
an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission.
3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of
ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome
of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground
and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not
see
it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig"
<paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbr
an
chc
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> %3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b>>onsulting.com< http://onsulting.com>>> wrote:
Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is
the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a
real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbra
nc
hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>%3cmailto:paul.rose
nz
weig@redbranchco>
nsulting.com<http://nsulting.com>>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>>
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message-----
From: Burr, Becky
[mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>< mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:B
ec ky.Burr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>]
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM
To: Olga Cavalli
<olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavall
i@ gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>>;
Schaefer, Brett
<Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:
Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>>
Cc:
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>< mailto:thomas@rickert.n <thomas@rickert.n>
et
%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>< mailto:thomas@rickert.n <thomas@rickert.n>
et
%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross
-c
omm
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross
-c
omm
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
and
11
issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been
that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an
exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note
Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further
restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy
General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932 <%2B1.202.533.2932>> Mobile:
+1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367 <%2B1.202.352.6367>> /
+neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli"
<olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <olgacavalli@gmail.com>%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Brett
there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett
<Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mai
lt
o:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>
escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table
when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to
Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email
demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the
GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent,
but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of
Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve
this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have
arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:
ka
vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto
:k
avo
<mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com <uss.arasteh@gmail.com>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie
As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have
serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in
the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and
send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current
text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED
TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion.
As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be
more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr
revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial
text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people.
Awaiting your action , I remain
Regards
Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a>
dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom
.admin.ch>>>>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to
(highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil
it
y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:
accountability-c>
ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a
cc
oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org <ross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabil
it
y-cr%3cmailto:accoun>
tability-cr>
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.
or
g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org <oss-community-bounces@icann.org> %3cmailto:oss-community-bou
nc
es@icann.org>>>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:acc
ou
nta
bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr
os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky
Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05
An: Greg Shatan
<gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:greg
sh
atanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregsha
t
<mailto:gregshat%0b>>>>anipc@gmail.com<mailto:anipc@gmail.com <anipc@gmail.com>><mailto:
gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller,
Milton L
<milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu <milton@gatech.edu>< mailto:milton@gatech.ed <milton@gatech.ed>
u% 3cmailto:milton@gatech.edu>><mailto:milton@gatech.edu <milton@gatech.edu><ma
<mailto:milton@gatech.edu <milton@gatech.edu>%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton@ gatech.edu<http://gat
ech.edu>>>>
Cc:
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros
s-
com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accoun
ta
bility-cross-com>
munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab
il
ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3
cm
ailto:accountability>
-cross-comm>
unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>< mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold,
GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only
consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we
accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC
cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of
community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.
In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than
two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the
Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of
ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might
otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the
2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________
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
http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http
-3
A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u
=h
ttp-3A__>
heritage
http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq
8M
o8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm
6X
_GRlaq8Mo8T>
jDmrxdYa
hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolh
J2
mGN
u
8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= >
Von: Kavouss Arasteh
[mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>< mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><
ma
ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>
]
Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a>
dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom
.admin.ch>>>>
Cc:
<jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>< mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:
jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:juka
<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk< mailto:cz@erst.d <cz@erst.d>
k>>>>
<jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>< mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:
jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:juka
<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk< mailto:cz@erst.d <cz@erst.d>
k>>>>;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-co
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mmunity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability>
-cross-com>
munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>< mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-co
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mmunity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability>
-cross-com>
munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>< mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
;
Becky Burr
<Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.
Bu
rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:Becky.Burr
<mailto:Becky.Burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:Becky
.Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net><mailto: thomas@rickert
.n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>
<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>%0b>>>>< mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>>>>;
Mathieu Weill
<Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.
Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We
<mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr <ill@afnic.fr>
<mailto:Math
ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe
Sánchez Ambía
<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli
pe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s
<mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli
pe@sanchez.mx>>>;
Schneider Thomas BAKOM
<Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin>.
ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider
@b
akom.admin.ch>>
<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bak
om
.ad
<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bako
m.ad%0b>>>>min.ch<http://min.ch>>>>
Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve
Recommendation
1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie,
Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member
requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial
Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page
deal" if includes your original text.
Regards
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a>
dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom
.admin.ch>>>>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of
community
IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many
concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh
[mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>< mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><
ma
ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>
]
Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a>
dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom
.admin.ch>>>>
Cc:
<jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>< mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:
jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:juka
<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk< mailto:cz@erst.d <cz@erst.d>
k>>>>
<jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>< mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:
jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:juka
<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk< mailto:cz@erst.d <cz@erst.d>
k>>>>;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-co
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mmunity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability>
-cross-com>
munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>< mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-co
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mmunity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability>
-cross-com>
munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>< mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation
1 and 11 issues
Dear All,
Why Not taking initial Beckie,s
Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other
questions resulted from het revised text.
Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards
Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a>
dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom
.admin.ch>>>>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote:
Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which
probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions
we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any
community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad
and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community
decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was
directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil
it
y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:
accountability-c>
ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a
cc
oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org <ross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabil
it
y-cr%3cmailto:accoun>
tability-cr>
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.
or
g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org <oss-community-bounces@icann.org> %3cmailto:oss-community-bou
nc
es@icann.org>>>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:acc
ou
nta
bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr
os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja
Wolman
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34
An: 'CCWG Accountability'
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-co
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mmunity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability>
-cross-com>
munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>< mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation
1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in
order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the
proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by
Becky (email of 2
February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³
Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of
Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the
Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community
power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the
Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in
community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will
not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to
initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise
a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN
Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a
mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice
supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting
the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause
ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text
suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is
that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision
based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it
refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision
based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above)
should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus
Langelinie Allé 17
DK-2100 København Ø
Telephone: +45 3529 1000
Direct: +45 35291308
E-mail:
jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>>< mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto
:j
ukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukac
z@erst.dk<mailto:z@erst.dk <z@erst.dk>>>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v
2/
url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.
co
m/v2/url>
?u=http-
3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk <http://3a__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>>&d
=C wIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif
zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioS
UB
1PW
w
WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil
it
y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:
accountability-c>
ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a
cc
oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org <ross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabil
it
y-cr%3cmailto:accoun>
tability-cr>
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.
or
g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org <oss-community-bounces@icann.org> %3cmailto:oss-community-bou
nc
es@icann.org>>>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:acc
ou
nta
bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr
os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky
Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19
Til: Kavouss Arasteh;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros
s-
com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accoun
ta
bility-cross-com>
munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab
il
ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3
cm
ailto:accountability>
-cross-comm>
unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>< mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>>;
Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and
11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been
working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a
consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to
resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am
supportive of this package deal, as described below (the
description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I
appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table
and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the
Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community
power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free
to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity,
but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed
thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a
Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This
carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work
with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to
implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in
Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out
and add the following language to cover situations that would
otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where
the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the
community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in
support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in
support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of
GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority
requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the
standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8
February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above
as first final reading;
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above
as first final reading; and
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above
as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd
final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February,
noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach
consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on
Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 /
neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz><http://www.neus
ta r.biz<http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz>>
From: Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:
ka
vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto
:k
avo
<mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.
com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com <uss.arasteh@gmail.com> %3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM
To: Accountability Community
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-co
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mmunity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability>
-cross-com>
munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>< mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
,
Becky Burr
<becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz <becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.
bu
rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:becky.burr
<mailto:becky.burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:becky
.burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill
<Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.
Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We
<mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr <ill@afnic.fr>
<mailto:Math
ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net><mailto: thomas@rickert
.n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>
<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>%0b>>>>< mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>>>>, León
Felipe Sánchez
Ambía
<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli
pe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s
<mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli
pe@sanchez.mx>>>
Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you:
We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a
coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of
assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some
adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the
Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in
advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA
stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is
working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual
meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we
need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible
set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely
insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single
SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to
the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well
as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the
interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network
connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of
the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the
entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last
kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last
kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our
current position which is different from each other and not rule
out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession
towards each other position .We need to take every possible
initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a
participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should
really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be
accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/
decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by
Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3.
Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the
Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No
other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6.
Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be
held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is
a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the
CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are
of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that
my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming
change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard
procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the
compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb
and
8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb.
Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested
clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or
standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly
necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the
Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community
power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free
to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity,
but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed
thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a
Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This
carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work
with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to
implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in
Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out
and add the following language to cover situations that would
otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where
the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the
community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in
support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in
support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of
GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority
requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the
standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8
February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above
as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above
as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described
above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd
final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February,
noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach
consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on
Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros
s-
Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accoun
ta
bility-Cross-Com>
munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab
il
ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3
cm
ailto:Accountability>
-Cross-Comm>
unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>< mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m
ai
lma
n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET
eD
ALC
_
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2
Ho
zbe
O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w
C7
M&e
=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_
ma
ilm
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai
lm%0b>>>>a
n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIE
Te
DAL
C
_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-
2H
ozb
e
OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-
wC
7M&
e
= >
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros
s-
Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accoun
ta
bility-Cross-Com>
munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab
il
ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3
cm
ailto:Accountability>
-Cross-Comm>
unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>< mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m
ai
lma
n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET
eD
ALC
_
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2
Ho
zbe
O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w
C7
M&e
=
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros
s-
Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accoun
ta
bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m
ai
lma
n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET
eD
ALC
_
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2
Ho
zbe
O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w
C7
M&e
=
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross
-C
omm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Account
ab
ility-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma
il
man
_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD
AL
C_l
U
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hoz
be
OZX
Y
oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&
e=
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
Co
mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accounta
bi
lity-Cross-Commu>
nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org <nity@icann.org>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
Co
mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accounta
bi
lity-Cross-Commu>
nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org <nity@icann.org>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
Co
mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accounta
bi
lity-Cross-Commu>
nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org <nity@icann.org>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
Co
mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accounta
bi
lity-Cross-Commu>
nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org <nity@icann.org>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
Co
mmunity@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C
ommunity@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
<GNSO Council Response to CCWG-Accountability - FINAL - 22 January 2016.pdf>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi Thomas, we will try to be prepared to address on the call. Holly Sent with Good (www.good.com) ________________________________ From: Thomas Rickert Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2016 03:03:45 PM To: Rosemary E. Fei; Gregory, Holly; Sidley ICANN CCWG; ICANN@adlercolvin.com Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Mathieu Weill; ACCT-Staff; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issu Dear Rosemary and Holly, This is to certify the review of the questions in the e-mail below. We do know this is extremely short notice, but it would be great if the answers could inform our discussion on this very topic next Monday, February 8th, 12.00 UTC. We do appreciate that time is too short for a written memo, but maybe one of you or team could offer initial answers during the call. I hope to be correct in assuming that you have seen the compromise proposal under consideration with input primarily from Kavouss and Becky. Also, you may find Rafael's previous questions and the answers offered by Becky informative. Should these not be known, please send a note to staff so they can forward them to you. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Thomas --- rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...> Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail: Von: "Perez Galindo, Rafael" <RPEREZGA@minetur.es<mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>> Datum: 6. Februar 2016 um 11:32:55 MEZ An: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>, "kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>" <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Kopie: "thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>" <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>> Betreff: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Co-chairs, Det me draw your attention to the latest developments in the discussions regarding Rec 11 (former ST 18), namely the carve-out system put forward by Becky and backed by the GNSO. While thanking Becky for this proposal, I believe we can all agree to acknowledge that the carve-out is not a mere adjustment, nor a tweak to complete or shape a package of measures, but it constitutes a major essential change, for it actually regulates the functioning of the EC with regards to the GAC, and could raise important political and legal concerns. Hence, and prior to any possible endorsement, I kindly ask that a detailed legal analisys of the proposed text be commissioned to the Legal assistance by the Co-Chairs: - who would decide whether the carve-out is applicable to a certain issue to be subject to a community decision - according to what standard would that decision be taken? For instance: is it enough if Board mentions GAC Advice in its rationale as a source for its decision. Or would a substantial test be applied, i.e. checked whether the Board decision follows GAC Advice? In the latter case, would the carve-out also apply if the GAC Advice is only partially followed? - what means of redress would be available for any party not in agreement with such a decision? - would the GAC, according to this wording, be able to participate fully in the decision-making of the community mechanism on the following topics?: 1. Any Board decision on policies or implementation of delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs, which would be taken. having regard, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs) 2. Any Board decision on policy or implementation of new gTLDs, which would also take into consideration, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on new gTLDs) Thank you and best regards Rafael ________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] on behalf of James Gannon [james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>] Sent: 05 February 2016 21:15 To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Jorge, I think at this point the GAC needs to go back and consider the proposition that is on the table the the GNSO appears to be in a position to support. We do not have the timelines available to us to continue to argue over this, the GNSO has come to rough support on a position now, I feel its time for the GAC to go back to its own processes with this proposition to evaluate it. We are all aware of the GACs wants in this, but that does not mean that the GNSO community will agree to them as we have laid out in our comments to the 3rd Draft proposal. I feel that if we keep going around in circles over what the GNSO and GAC are potentially able to negotiate we will never end this process, and I think we all want to attempt to bring this to a close ASAP. I hope that the GAC can continue to show its flexibility and ability to compromise and work together with the broad community on this, no-one is setting out to disenfranchise any stakeholder group here, we are all trying to make this the least bad solution that we can all agree on. On this point no-one is winning and no-one is losing. -James On 05/02/2016, 8:03 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Keith Thank you very much for this full text of the gnso input. I'm aware if the concerns expressed by the gnso, and as I have said several times, I consider them legitimate and relevant, although we may have different opinions on their degree of impact or the means to address them. At the same time we all know that the GAC came a long way to reach a consensus input on the then ST18, now rec11. And such difficulties were based on concerns from a relevant number of governments whose concerns I feel we should also consider legitimate and worth consideration. Rec11 was then based on a compromise, which still raised concerns from sectors of the gnso and from a number of governments. I think the solution is not to privilege parts of the community in reaching a solution. We need to take on board as many stakeholders and constituencies as possible. In the last weeks we agreed, we all agreed, to take up important points made by the gnso on rec11: clarify that the Board has no new obligations, the obligation of a clear rationale, the clarification that Board decisions always have to be consistent with Bylaws, irrespective of the source of the advice on which such a decision is based. On rec10 we also made additions to address concerns expressed around the accountability review of the GAC. And again on rec11 -as I also said- I felt that Becky's initial proposal (at least as some of us understood it) was one possible means. And I think that if we narrow it down to the community IRP it could work. But to word it in such broad terms as it is now has the effect I have repeatedly described. Our lawyers could analyze the scooe of such an exception and advise us. If we agree that the GAC is a legitimate participant in the community mechanism, as we habe repeatedly and consistently agreed, then we cannot favour an overbroad carve-out, because the GAC would not be able to participate on an equal footing in the community mechanism. In such case we need to clarify and word the carve-out in such terms that it is clear that we just want a very narrow carve-out and that this will not prevent the GAC from normally participating in the community mechanism, with a few exceptions. If the intention is to have a broad carve-out, then we would not be able to agree. But I hope that we are in the first case. best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 05.02.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>: Thanks Jorge, A majority of the GNSO's constituent groups view the combination of Rec-1, Rec-10 and Rec-11 as "interlinked." The majority of GNSO groups (sufficient to reject) view ANY change of Board voting threshold for GAC consensus advice to be highly problematic. The GNSO's willingness to consider and accept Kavouss' suggested compromise of 60% is entirely dependent upon the further clarifications suggested by Becky in the Arasteh/Burr proposal. I've attached the GNSO Council comments, which are a summary of the GNSO groups comments, for your further review. Here are the relevant texts: From the GNSO Comments on Rec-1: "Some in the GNSO have identified a clear link with Recommendations #10 & #11 and are of the view that the current balance between SO/ACs needs to be preserved in the Empowered Community, especially with respect to the GAC." [This means the status quo should be maintained -- the GAC should remain advisory and not have a decisional role.] From the GNSO Comment on Rec-10: "There are some concerns within the GNSO with the top down nature of accountability reviews, and the exemption of the GAC from this community requirement. It is also troubling that the GAC, further empowered if Recommendations #1 and #11 are adopted, would be exempted from the same periodic reviews as the other SO/ACs. All participants in the Community Mechanism should be subject to equivalent accountability reviews." From the GNSO Comment on Rec-11: "There is broad opposition to this recommendation as written. Most SG/Cs do not support the proposal to raise the threshold for a Board vote to reject GAC advice. All expressed serious concerns over the lack of specificity in the recommendation in relation to the requirements for GAC advice (such as the provision of rationale) and the possibility that this recommendation, if adopted, could unduly change the nature of the Board-GAC relationship and/or the position of the GAC vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs also believe that any CCWG recommendation on this topic should retain the current flexibility in the Bylaws where the Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in order to reject GAC advice." "IPC, NCSG and the Registrars SG expressly objected to changing and specifying the threshold for Board action; the Registries SG and ISPCP Constituency did not object expressly but highlighted significant concerns about the implications of such a change. The Registries SG stated it was unlikely to support the 2/3 threshold for Board action unless three additional requirements (provision of a rationale, consistency with ICANN bylaws and within GAC scope, and defined consensus) applied to such GAC Advice. While BC and NPOC supported the change, both nevertheless also noted concerns over the implications, with the BC's support expressly conditioned upon certain qualifications being made to the proposal." Regards, Keith -----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 2:16 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es<mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>; jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>; thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Keith I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements? The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right? Best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>: Dear Jorge, Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations. The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it. If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute. Regards, Keith -----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es<mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>; jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>; thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Keith This is an interesting question. But what we have on the table is the third draft report. This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some gnso members (who have proposed this) best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>: We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object? Regards, Keith From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM To: James M. Bladel; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; Drazek, Keith Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-c ommunity@icann.org<mailto:ommunity@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either. Best Rafael Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos. -------- Original message -------- From: "James M. Bladel" Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00) To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-c ommunity@icann.org<mailto:ommunity@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Hello Jorge - Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC? Thanks- J. On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com%3cmailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__verisign.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=x-VQJVnOKEttRNXDaGtjg0qBUkOPFRCcWRuO7Pchyco&e=>>>>: The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days. Regards, Keith Sent from my iPhone On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com><mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>> wrote: Hi Paul, You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here. I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible. As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC. I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following: 1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP) I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it) Regards On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com><mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbr an chc <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b>>onsulting.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__onsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=5KHnoAhrAjr7fAxFcnt_UZe1YtILpdAqVarvKqTo3pE&e=><http://onsulting.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__onsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=5KHnoAhrAjr7fAxFcnt_UZe1YtILpdAqVarvKqTo3pE&e=>>>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com><mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbra nc hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rose nz weig@redbranchco> nsulting.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=MWcLj9QiWa6FkG9XkRKeXbvFGGWMKuSdoJZOVx0uFBM&e=><http://nsulting.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=MWcLj9QiWa6FkG9XkRKeXbvFGGWMKuSdoJZOVx0uFBM&e=>>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:B ec ky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:ky.Burr@neustar.biz>%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>>>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavall i@ gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=>>>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>>> <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / +neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>> <http://www.neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=HrdlbmWrCO5JBFBy01CZkxzYffOEnj734nbsz6rmC3w&e=>> On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>> wrote: Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mai lt o:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=>%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=>> escribió: Kavouss, Becky responded to this yesterday: Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this. I expect she will follow up soon. Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP. I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday. If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it. Best, Brett On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: ka vouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:vouss.arasteh@gmail.com>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>><mailto :k avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>>> wrote: Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged): == Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountabil it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org<mailto:es@icann.org>>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cro ss -community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:greg sh atanipc@gmail.com<mailto:atanipc@gmail.com>%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>><mailto:gregsha t <mailto:gregshat%0b>>>>anipc@gmail.com<mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.ed u% 3cmailto:milton@gatech.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gatech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=SPAXWQC6Dsx9-zWUlTgefSw18mVTdfNEVkBp5qftNNY&e=>>><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<ma <mailto:milton@gatech.edu%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton@gatech.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gatech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=SPAXWQC6Dsx9-zWUlTgefSw18mVTdfNEVkBp5qftNNY&e=><http://gat<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gat&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=WEOI2s3x2bkzEcuI6sDmynpBYdCfQu9Gx1c8Dm9xmCA&e=> ech.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=q57UP-BUi36awfkk9v0_QmW_zo-iqc1g58fkIrTD4OM&e=>>>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cros s- com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun ta bility-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 cm ailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing I have a proposal for discussion. Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission. I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold. Just a thought - === Regards Jorge ________________________________ 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 http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http -3 A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org-253chttps-3A_urldefense.proofpoint.com_v2_url-3Fu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=Gtc6E6VHfgb_i0XKDZwjHaHm1RkAHvgH4oUQoopUHXc&e=> =h ttp-3A__> heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq 8M o8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__-26gt-3B-26gt-3B.org-5F-26d-3Dcwigaq-26c-3Dmoptnlvtietedalc-5Flulrw-26r-3D62cjfoifzm&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=REtqw8XE73ZxbVu-e_HhGfX4ZGLz4PLhRG4i3BAn3uU&e=> 6X _GRlaq8Mo8T> jDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolh J2 mGN u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< ma ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>> ] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> ; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky. Bu rr@neustar.biz<mailto:rr@neustar.biz>%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>>><mailto:Becky.Burr <mailto:Becky.Burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><mailto:Becky .Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Burr@neustar.biz>>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Weill@afnic.fr>%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afnic.fr&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=Z8tDOMEnBfhmdWPrAzVwyG-OZ_TAZbVRCV4ezC9Uxyc&e=>>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math ieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli pe @sanchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=><http://anchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=>><mailto:leonfeli pe@sanchez.mx<mailto:pe@sanchez.mx>>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin. ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider @b akom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__akom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=5m1Wu4_QF6gCTq1iMMVb_273bS7EFLGYD9CyaejWu-E&e=>>> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bak om .ad <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bako m.ad%0b>>>>min.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__min.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=jjfmbIWBm7Ffx6QzdROvG_rTO66AgO3JjqjFneu7scI&e=><http://min.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__min.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=jjfmbIWBm7Ffx6QzdROvG_rTO66AgO3JjqjFneu7scI&e=>>>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations. Regards Jorge Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< ma ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>> ] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote: Dear all I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday. A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it. This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant. Regards Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountabil it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org<mailto:es@icann.org>>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cro ss -community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion: ³ Burr Proposal: ? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23. The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.² However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call. Best regards, Finn and Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto :j ukacz@erst.dk<mailto:ukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukac z@erst.dk<mailto:z@erst.dk><mailto:z@erst.dk>>> http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmB3s21IfuNbh13VrL_P3pm-s8gzWnm-3M6j6nI_348&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v 2/ url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk-253chttps-3A_urldefense.proofpoint&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=Ijs5G7Ftbj3C-WUg-8E5J-aeUiLlyHyrAA9dgrbn_kg&e=>. co m/v2/url> ?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__3a-5F-5Fwww.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=WEbCbAM7VuGbzjgvfUiwjCbGrx9N0Rf_XbVUUhaPeeY&e=>>&d =C wIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioS UB 1PW w WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= > MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountabil it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org<mailto:es@icann.org>>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cro ss -community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cros s- com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun ta bility-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 cm ailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus! 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) * Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><http://www.neus<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neus&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=2PUd-2B5kmyJjzfZM90Pim0LySYCYfR8ID6S63UrXus&e=> ta r.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=ENjjcG0Hicj2PD0T3Zsbg22ppEoqQxmwliklHtZlPSI&e=><http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz-253e-253chttp-3A_www.neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=iTpR0rMW7n5cpCjw_ksnW_E7ByuJeJSZk243T0P7V7c&e=>>> From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: ka vouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:vouss.arasteh@gmail.com>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>><mailto :k avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail. com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> , Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky. bu rr@neustar.biz<mailto:rr@neustar.biz>%3cmailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>>><mailto:becky.burr <mailto:becky.burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><mailto:becky .burr@neustar.biz<mailto:burr@neustar.biz>>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Weill@afnic.fr>%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afnic.fr&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=Z8tDOMEnBfhmdWPrAzVwyG-OZ_TAZbVRCV4ezC9Uxyc&e=>>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math ieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli pe @sanchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=><http://anchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=>><mailto:leonfeli pe@sanchez.mx<mailto:pe@sanchez.mx>>>> Subject: <no subject> Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings, I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community. We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11 We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together. However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection. We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability. Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed . The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical 1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it. Package Deal 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) · Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; · Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and · Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cros s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 cm ailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e = <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ ma ilm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lm%0b>>>>a n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIE Te DAL C _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7- 2H ozb e OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X- wC 7M& e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cros s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 cm ailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e = _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cros s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e = _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross -C omm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Account ab ility-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma il man _ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD AL C_l U Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hoz be OZX Y oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e= _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-C ommunity@icann.org<mailto:ommunity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> <GNSO Council Response to CCWG-Accountability - FINAL - 22 January 2016.pdf> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************
Dear Holly, Thank you very much. But the issue is too delicate, complex and sensitive. We do not accept only verbal explanation as said by you Quote *" we will try to be prepared to address on the call."* *Unquote* We need a memo describing t various aspects of the matter. Pls kindly parepare a MEMO i HEREBY REQUEST THE cO-Chair to urge our legal Council to prepare a formal MEMO. Failure to do so, considerable delay may be caused.to the entire process. GAC MEMBERS WOULD CERTAINLY NOT HAPPY FOR ANY VERBAL EXPLANATION AND PERHAPS gnso too Regards Kavouss 2016-02-07 14:46 GMT+01:00 Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com>:
Hi Thomas, we will try to be prepared to address on the call. Holly
Sent with Good (www.good.com)
------------------------------ *From:* Thomas Rickert *Sent:* Saturday, February 06, 2016 03:03:45 PM *To:* Rosemary E. Fei; Gregory, Holly; Sidley ICANN CCWG; ICANN@adlercolvin.com *Cc:* León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Mathieu Weill; ACCT-Staff; Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issu
Dear Rosemary and Holly, This is to certify the review of the questions in the e-mail below. We do know this is extremely short notice, but it would be great if the answers could inform our discussion on this very topic next Monday, February 8th, 12.00 UTC. We do appreciate that time is too short for a written memo, but maybe one of you or team could offer initial answers during the call.
I hope to be correct in assuming that you have seen the compromise proposal under consideration with input primarily from Kavouss and Becky. Also, you may find Rafael's previous questions and the answers offered by Becky informative. Should these not be known, please send a note to staff so they can forward them to you.
Thank you very much.
Kind regards, Thomas
--- rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail:
*Von:* "Perez Galindo, Rafael" <RPEREZGA@minetur.es> *Datum:* 6. Februar 2016 um 11:32:55 MEZ *An:* James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, "kdrazek@verisign.com" < kdrazek@verisign.com> *Kopie:* "thomas@rickert.net" <thomas@rickert.net>, " accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Betreff:* *RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues*
Dear Co-chairs,
Det me draw your attention to the latest developments in the discussions regarding Rec 11 (former ST 18), namely the carve-out system put forward by Becky and backed by the GNSO.
While thanking Becky for this proposal, I believe we can all agree to acknowledge that the carve-out is not a mere adjustment, nor a tweak to complete or shape a package of measures, but it constitutes a major essential change, for it actually regulates the functioning of the EC with regards to the GAC, and could raise important political and legal concerns.
Hence, and prior to any possible endorsement, I kindly ask that a detailed legal analisys of the proposed text be commissioned to the Legal assistance by the Co-Chairs:
- who would decide whether the carve-out is applicable to a certain issue to be subject to a community decision
- according to what standard would that decision be taken? For instance: is it enough if Board mentions GAC Advice in its rationale as a source for its decision. Or would a substantial test be applied, i.e. checked whether the Board decision follows GAC Advice? In the latter case, would the carve-out also apply if the GAC Advice is only partially followed?
- what means of redress would be available for any party not in agreement with such a decision?
- would the GAC, according to this wording, be able to participate fully in the decision-making of the community mechanism on the following topics?:
1. Any Board decision on policies or implementation of delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs, which would be taken. having regard, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs)
2. Any Board decision on policy or implementation of new gTLDs, which would also take into consideration, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on new gTLDs)
Thank you and best regards
Rafael
________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of James Gannon [james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: 05 February 2016 21:15 To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; kdrazek@verisign.com Cc: thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Jorge, I think at this point the GAC needs to go back and consider the proposition that is on the table the the GNSO appears to be in a position to support.
We do not have the timelines available to us to continue to argue over this, the GNSO has come to rough support on a position now, I feel its time for the GAC to go back to its own processes with this proposition to evaluate it. We are all aware of the GACs wants in this, but that does not mean that the GNSO community will agree to them as we have laid out in our comments to the 3rd Draft proposal.
I feel that if we keep going around in circles over what the GNSO and GAC are potentially able to negotiate we will never end this process, and I think we all want to attempt to bring this to a close ASAP. I hope that the GAC can continue to show its flexibility and ability to compromise and work together with the broad community on this, no-one is setting out to disenfranchise any stakeholder group here, we are all trying to make this the least bad solution that we can all agree on. On this point no-one is winning and no-one is losing.
-James
On 05/02/2016, 8:03 p.m., " accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" < accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Keith
Thank you very much for this full text of the gnso input.
I'm aware if the concerns expressed by the gnso, and as I have said several times, I consider them legitimate and relevant, although we may have different opinions on their degree of impact or the means to address them.
At the same time we all know that the GAC came a long way to reach a consensus input on the then ST18, now rec11. And such difficulties were based on concerns from a relevant number of governments whose concerns I feel we should also consider legitimate and worth consideration.
Rec11 was then based on a compromise, which still raised concerns from sectors of the gnso and from a number of governments.
I think the solution is not to privilege parts of the community in reaching a solution.
We need to take on board as many stakeholders and constituencies as possible.
In the last weeks we agreed, we all agreed, to take up important points made by the gnso on rec11: clarify that the Board has no new obligations, the obligation of a clear rationale, the clarification that Board decisions always have to be consistent with Bylaws, irrespective of the source of the advice on which such a decision is based.
On rec10 we also made additions to address concerns expressed around the accountability review of the GAC.
And again on rec11 -as I also said- I felt that Becky's initial proposal (at least as some of us understood it) was one possible means. And I think that if we narrow it down to the community IRP it could work.
But to word it in such broad terms as it is now has the effect I have repeatedly described. Our lawyers could analyze the scooe of such an exception and advise us.
If we agree that the GAC is a legitimate participant in the community mechanism, as we habe repeatedly and consistently agreed, then we cannot favour an overbroad carve-out, because the GAC would not be able to participate on an equal footing in the community mechanism.
In such case we need to clarify and word the carve-out in such terms that it is clear that we just want a very narrow carve-out and that this will not prevent the GAC from normally participating in the community mechanism, with a few exceptions.
If the intention is to have a broad carve-out, then we would not be able to agree.
But I hope that we are in the first case.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Thanks Jorge,
A majority of the GNSO's constituent groups view the combination of Rec-1, Rec-10 and Rec-11 as "interlinked." The majority of GNSO groups (sufficient to reject) view ANY change of Board voting threshold for GAC consensus advice to be highly problematic. The GNSO's willingness to consider and accept Kavouss' suggested compromise of 60% is entirely dependent upon the further clarifications suggested by Becky in the Arasteh/Burr proposal.
I've attached the GNSO Council comments, which are a summary of the GNSO groups comments, for your further review. Here are the relevant texts:
From the GNSO Comments on Rec-1:
"Some in the GNSO have identified a clear link with Recommendations #10 & #11 and are of the view that the current balance between SO/ACs needs to be preserved in the Empowered Community, especially with respect to the GAC." [This means the status quo should be maintained -- the GAC should remain advisory and not have a decisional role.]
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-10:
"There are some concerns within the GNSO with the top down nature of accountability reviews, and the exemption of the GAC from this community requirement. It is also troubling that the GAC, further empowered if Recommendations #1 and #11 are adopted, would be exempted from the same periodic reviews as the other SO/ACs. All participants in the Community Mechanism should be subject to equivalent accountability reviews."
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-11:
"There is broad opposition to this recommendation as written. Most SG/Cs do not support the proposal to raise the threshold for a Board vote to reject GAC advice. All expressed serious concerns over the
lack of specificity in the recommendation in relation to the requirements for GAC advice (such as the provision of rationale) and the possibility that this recommendation, if adopted, could unduly change the nature of the Board-GAC relationship and/or the position of the GAC vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs also believe that any CCWG recommendation on this topic should retain the current flexibility in the Bylaws where the Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in order to reject GAC advice."
"IPC, NCSG and the Registrars SG expressly objected to changing and specifying the threshold for Board action; the Registries SG and ISPCP Constituency did not object expressly but highlighted significant concerns about the implications of such a change. The Registries SG stated it was unlikely to support the 2/3 threshold for Board action unless three additional requirements (provision of a rationale, consistency with ICANN bylaws and within GAC scope, and defined consensus) applied to such GAC Advice. While BC and NPOC supported the change, both nevertheless also noted concerns over the implications, with the BC's support expressly conditioned upon certain qualifications being made to the proposal."
Regards,
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>]
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 2:16 PM
To: Drazek, Keith
Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements?
The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right?
Best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Dear Jorge,
Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations.
The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it.
If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute.
Regards,
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>]
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM
To: Drazek, Keith
Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
and 11 issues
Dear Keith
This is an interesting question.
But what we have on the table is the third draft report.
This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a
higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the
consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some
gnso members (who have proposed this)
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com< mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <kdrazek@verisign.com>>>:
We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object?
Regards,
Keith
From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es <RPEREZGA@minetur.es>]
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM
To: James M. Bladel;
Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>;
Drazek, Keith
Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>>;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c
ommunity@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
and 11 issues
It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either.
Best
Rafael
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.
-------- Original message --------
From: "James M. Bladel"
Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00)
To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>,
kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <kdrazek@verisign.com>>
Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>>,
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c
ommunity@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
and 11 issues
Hello Jorge -
Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC?
Thanks-
J.
On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%20on%0bbehalf%20of% 20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>"
<accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%20on%20behalf%20of% 0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a
discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and
little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith
<kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <kdrazek@verisign.com>< mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <kdrazek@verisign.com>%3cmailto:kdrazek@ verisign.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__verisign.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=...>
:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives
the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold
to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates
appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way
forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11.
Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards,
Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji
<seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com><mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-).
While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting
right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the
community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and
that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same
level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some
extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain
situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not
give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making
power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto
GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of
the
following:
1. Rejected by board
2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by
an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission.
3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of
ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome
of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground
and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not
see
it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig"
<paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbr
an
chc
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> %3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b>>onsulting.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__onsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c...> <http://onsulting.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__onsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=5KHnoAhrAjr7fAxFcnt_UZe1YtILpdAqVarvKqTo3pE&e=>>>> wrote:
Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is
the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a
real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbra
nc
hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>%3cmailto:paul.rose
nz
weig@redbranchco>
nsulting.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=...> <http://nsulting.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=...>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>>
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message-----
From: Burr, Becky
[mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>< mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:B
ec ky.Burr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
]
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM
To: Olga Cavalli
<olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavall
i@ gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...> %3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
;
Schaefer, Brett
<Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:
Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=...>
Cc:
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>< mailto:thomas@rickert.n <thomas@rickert.n>
et
%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>< mailto:thomas@rickert.n <thomas@rickert.n>
et
%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross
-c
omm
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross
-c
omm
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
and
11
issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been
that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an
exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note
Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further
restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy
General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932 <%2B1.202.533.2932>> Mobile:
+1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367 <%2B1.202.352.6367>> /
+neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...> <http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<http://www.neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ...>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli"
<olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <olgacavalli@gmail.com>%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>> wrote:
Brett
there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett
<Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mai
lt
o:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=...> %3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=...>
escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table
when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to
Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email
demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the
GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent,
but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of
Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve
this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have
arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:
ka
vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
<mailto
:k
avo
<mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com <uss.arasteh@gmail.com>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie
As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have
serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in
the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and
send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current
text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED
TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion.
As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be
more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr
revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial
text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people.
Awaiting your action , I remain
Regards
Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&...>
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a>
dmin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00q...> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom
.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00...>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&...>
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to
(highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil
it
y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:
accountability-c>
ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a
cc
oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org <ross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabil
it
y-cr%3cmailto:accoun>
tability-cr>
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.
or
g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org <oss-community-bounces@icann.org> %3cmailto:oss-community-bou
nc
es@icann.org>>>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:acc
ou
nta
bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr
os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky
Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05
An: Greg Shatan
<gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:greg
sh
atanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
<mailto:gregsha
t
<mailto:gregshat%0b>>>>anipc@gmail.com<mailto:anipc@gmail.com <anipc@gmail.com>><mailto:
gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller,
Milton L
<milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu <milton@gatech.edu>< mailto:milton@gatech.ed <milton@gatech.ed>
u% 3cmailto:milton@gatech.edu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gatech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od...>
<mailto:milton@gatech.edu <milton@gatech.edu><ma
<mailto:milton@gatech.edu <milton@gatech.edu>%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton@ gatech.edu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gatech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od...> <http://gat <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gat&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XT...>
ech.edu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00q...>
Cc:
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros
s-
com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accoun
ta
bility-cross-com>
munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab
il
ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3
cm
ailto:accountability>
-cross-comm>
unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>< mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold,
GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only
consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we
accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC
cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of
community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.
In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than
two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the
Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of
ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might
otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the
2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________
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
http://heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=...> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http
-3
A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org-253chttps-3...>
=h
ttp-3A__>
heritage
http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq
8M
o8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__-26gt-3B-26gt-3B.org-5F-...>
6X
_GRlaq8Mo8T>
jDmrxdYa
hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolh
J2
mGN
u
8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= >
Von: Kavouss Arasteh
[mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>< mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><
ma
ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...> %3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
]
Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&...>
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a>
dmin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00q...> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom
.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00...>
Cc:
<jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>< mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:
jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:juka
<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk< mailto:cz@erst.d <cz@erst.d>
k>>>>
<jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>< mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:
jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:juka
<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk< mailto:cz@erst.d <cz@erst.d>
k>>>>;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-co
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mmunity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability>
-cross-com>
munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>< mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-co
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mmunity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability>
-cross-com>
munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>< mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
;
Becky Burr
<Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.
Bu
rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<mailto:Becky.Burr
<mailto:Becky.Burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...> <http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<mailto:Becky
.Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net><mailto: thomas@rickert
.n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>
<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>%0b>>>>< mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>>>>;
Mathieu Weill
<Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.
Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afnic.fr&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00...>
<mailto:Mathieu.We
<mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr <ill@afnic.fr>
<mailto:Math
ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe
Sánchez Ambía
<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli
pe @sanchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od...> %3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od...>
<mailto:leonfelipe@s
<mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...> <http://anchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
<mailto:leonfeli
pe@sanchez.mx>>>;
Schneider Thomas BAKOM
<Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin>.
ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider
@b
akom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__akom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c...>
<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bak
om
.ad
<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bako
m.ad%0b>>>>min.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__min.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP...> <http://min.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__min.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP...>
Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve
Recommendation
1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie,
Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member
requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial
Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page
deal" if includes your original text.
Regards
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&...>
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a>
dmin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00q...> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom
.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00...>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&...>
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of
community
IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many
concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh
[mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>< mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><
ma
ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...> %3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
]
Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&...>
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a>
dmin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00q...> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom
.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00...>
Cc:
<jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>< mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:
jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:juka
<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk< mailto:cz@erst.d <cz@erst.d>
k>>>>
<jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>< mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:
jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:juka
<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk< mailto:cz@erst.d <cz@erst.d>
k>>>>;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-co
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mmunity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability>
-cross-com>
munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>< mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-co
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mmunity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability>
-cross-com>
munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>< mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation
1 and 11 issues
Dear All,
Why Not taking initial Beckie,s
Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other
questions resulted from het revised text.
Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards
Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&...>
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a>
dmin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00q...> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom
.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00...>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&...>
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote:
Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which
probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions
we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any
community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad
and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community
decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was
directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil
it
y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:
accountability-c>
ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a
cc
oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org <ross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabil
it
y-cr%3cmailto:accoun>
tability-cr>
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.
or
g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org <oss-community-bounces@icann.org> %3cmailto:oss-community-bou
nc
es@icann.org>>>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:acc
ou
nta
bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr
os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja
Wolman
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34
An: 'CCWG Accountability'
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-co
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mmunity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability>
-cross-com>
munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>< mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation
1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in
order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the
proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by
Becky (email of 2
February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³
Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of
Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the
Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community
power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the
Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in
community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will
not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to
initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise
a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN
Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a
mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice
supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting
the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause
ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text
suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is
that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision
based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it
refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision
based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above)
should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus
Langelinie Allé 17
DK-2100 København Ø
Telephone: +45 3529 1000
Direct: +45 35291308
E-mail:
jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>>< mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto
:j
ukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukac
z@erst.dk<mailto:z@erst.dk <z@erst.dk>>>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk...> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v
2/
url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk...> .
co
m/v2/url>
?u=http-
3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__3a-5F-5Fwww.erhvervsstyr...>
&d
=C wIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif
zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioS
UB
1PW
w
WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil
it
y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:
accountability-c>
ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a
cc
oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org <ross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabil
it
y-cr%3cmailto:accoun>
tability-cr>
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.
or
g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org <oss-community-bounces@icann.org> %3cmailto:oss-community-bou
nc
es@icann.org>>>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:acc
ou
nta
bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr
os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky
Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19
Til: Kavouss Arasteh;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros
s-
com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accoun
ta
bility-cross-com>
munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab
il
ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3
cm
ailto:accountability>
-cross-comm>
unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>< mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>>;
Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and
11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been
working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a
consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to
resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am
supportive of this package deal, as described below (the
description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I
appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table
and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the
Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community
power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free
to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity,
but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed
thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a
Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This
carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work
with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to
implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in
Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out
and add the following language to cover situations that would
otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where
the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the
community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in
support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in
support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of
GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority
requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the
standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8
February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above
as first final reading;
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above
as first final reading; and
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above
as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd
final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February,
noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach
consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on
Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 /
neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...> <http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...> <http://www.neus <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neus&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00...>
ta r.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2...> <http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz-253e-253chtt...>
From: Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:
ka
vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
<mailto
:k
avo
<mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.
com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com <uss.arasteh@gmail.com> %3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM
To: Accountability Community
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-co
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mmunity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability>
-cross-com>
munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>< mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
,
Becky Burr
<becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz <becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.
bu
rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<mailto:becky.burr
<mailto:becky.burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...> <http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<mailto:becky
.burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill
<Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.
Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afnic.fr&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00...>
<mailto:Mathieu.We
<mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr <ill@afnic.fr>
<mailto:Math
ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net><mailto: thomas@rickert
.n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>
<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>%0b>>>>< mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>>>>, León
Felipe Sánchez
Ambía
<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli
pe @sanchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od...> %3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od...>
<mailto:leonfelipe@s
<mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...> <http://anchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
<mailto:leonfeli
pe@sanchez.mx>>>
Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you:
We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a
coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of
assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some
adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the
Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in
advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA
stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is
working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual
meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we
need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible
set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely
insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single
SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to
the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well
as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the
interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network
connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of
the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the
entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last
kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last
kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our
current position which is different from each other and not rule
out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession
towards each other position .We need to take every possible
initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a
participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should
really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be
accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/
decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by
Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3.
Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the
Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No
other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6.
Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be
held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is
a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the
CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are
of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that
my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming
change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard
procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the
compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb
and
8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb.
Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested
clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or
standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly
necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the
Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community
power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free
to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity,
but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed
thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a
Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This
carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work
with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to
implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in
Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out
and add the following language to cover situations that would
otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where
the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the
community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in
support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in
support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of
GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority
requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the
standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8
February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above
as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above
as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described
above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd
final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February,
noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach
consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on
Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros
s-
Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accoun
ta
bility-Cross-Com>
munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab
il
ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3
cm
ailto:Accountability>
-Cross-Comm>
unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>< mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m
ai
lma
n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET
eD
ALC
_
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2
Ho
zbe
O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w
C7
M&e
=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_
ma
ilm
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai
lm%0b>>>>a
n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIE
Te
DAL
C
_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-
2H
ozb
e
OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-
wC
7M&
e
= >
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros
s-
Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accoun
ta
bility-Cross-Com>
munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab
il
ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3
cm
ailto:Accountability>
-Cross-Comm>
unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>< mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m
ai
lma
n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET
eD
ALC
_
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2
Ho
zbe
O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w
C7
M&e
=
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros
s-
Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accoun
ta
bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m
ai
lma
n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET
eD
ALC
_
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2
Ho
zbe
O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w
C7
M&e
=
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross
-C
omm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Account
ab
ility-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma
il
man
_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD
AL
C_l
U
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hoz
be
OZX
Y
oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&
e=
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
Co
mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accounta
bi
lity-Cross-Commu>
nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org <nity@icann.org>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
Co
mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accounta
bi
lity-Cross-Commu>
nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org <nity@icann.org>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
Co
mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accounta
bi
lity-Cross-Commu>
nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org <nity@icann.org>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
Co
mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accounta
bi
lity-Cross-Commu>
nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org <nity@icann.org>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
Co
mmunity@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C
ommunity@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
<GNSO Council Response to CCWG-Accountability - FINAL - 22 January 2016.pdf>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
**************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
****************************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Legal analysis cannot be rushed or it is of no value to any of us. Please allow our lawyers do prepare what they are able to do for the call and Im sure that formal written opinion will come when it is available. Also recognise that this is the weekend and full teams may not be available. -james From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Sunday 7 February 2016 at 2:19 p.m. To: "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>> Cc: "ICANN@adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>" <ICANN@adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issu Dear Holly, Thank you very much. But the issue is too delicate, complex and sensitive. We do not accept only verbal explanation as said by you Quote " we will try to be prepared to address on the call." Unquote We need a memo describing t various aspects of the matter. Pls kindly parepare a MEMO i HEREBY REQUEST THE cO-Chair to urge our legal Council to prepare a formal MEMO. Failure to do so, considerable delay may be caused.to<http://caused.to> the entire process. GAC MEMBERS WOULD CERTAINLY NOT HAPPY FOR ANY VERBAL EXPLANATION AND PERHAPS gnso too Regards Kavouss 2016-02-07 14:46 GMT+01:00 Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>>: Hi Thomas, we will try to be prepared to address on the call. Holly Sent with Good (www.good.com<http://www.good.com>) ________________________________ From: Thomas Rickert Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2016 03:03:45 PM To: Rosemary E. Fei; Gregory, Holly; Sidley ICANN CCWG; ICANN@adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Mathieu Weill; ACCT-Staff; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issu Dear Rosemary and Holly, This is to certify the review of the questions in the e-mail below. We do know this is extremely short notice, but it would be great if the answers could inform our discussion on this very topic next Monday, February 8th, 12.00 UTC. We do appreciate that time is too short for a written memo, but maybe one of you or team could offer initial answers during the call. I hope to be correct in assuming that you have seen the compromise proposal under consideration with input primarily from Kavouss and Becky. Also, you may find Rafael's previous questions and the answers offered by Becky informative. Should these not be known, please send a note to staff so they can forward them to you. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Thomas --- rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...> Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail: Von: "Perez Galindo, Rafael" <RPEREZGA@minetur.es<mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>> Datum: 6. Februar 2016 um 11:32:55 MEZ An: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>, "kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>" <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Kopie: "thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>" <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>> Betreff: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Co-chairs, Det me draw your attention to the latest developments in the discussions regarding Rec 11 (former ST 18), namely the carve-out system put forward by Becky and backed by the GNSO. While thanking Becky for this proposal, I believe we can all agree to acknowledge that the carve-out is not a mere adjustment, nor a tweak to complete or shape a package of measures, but it constitutes a major essential change, for it actually regulates the functioning of the EC with regards to the GAC, and could raise important political and legal concerns. Hence, and prior to any possible endorsement, I kindly ask that a detailed legal analisys of the proposed text be commissioned to the Legal assistance by the Co-Chairs: - who would decide whether the carve-out is applicable to a certain issue to be subject to a community decision - according to what standard would that decision be taken? For instance: is it enough if Board mentions GAC Advice in its rationale as a source for its decision. Or would a substantial test be applied, i.e. checked whether the Board decision follows GAC Advice? In the latter case, would the carve-out also apply if the GAC Advice is only partially followed? - what means of redress would be available for any party not in agreement with such a decision? - would the GAC, according to this wording, be able to participate fully in the decision-making of the community mechanism on the following topics?: 1. Any Board decision on policies or implementation of delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs, which would be taken. having regard, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs) 2. Any Board decision on policy or implementation of new gTLDs, which would also take into consideration, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on new gTLDs) Thank you and best regards Rafael ________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] on behalf of James Gannon [james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>] Sent: 05 February 2016 21:15 To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Jorge, I think at this point the GAC needs to go back and consider the proposition that is on the table the the GNSO appears to be in a position to support. We do not have the timelines available to us to continue to argue over this, the GNSO has come to rough support on a position now, I feel its time for the GAC to go back to its own processes with this proposition to evaluate it. We are all aware of the GACs wants in this, but that does not mean that the GNSO community will agree to them as we have laid out in our comments to the 3rd Draft proposal. I feel that if we keep going around in circles over what the GNSO and GAC are potentially able to negotiate we will never end this process, and I think we all want to attempt to bring this to a close ASAP. I hope that the GAC can continue to show its flexibility and ability to compromise and work together with the broad community on this, no-one is setting out to disenfranchise any stakeholder group here, we are all trying to make this the least bad solution that we can all agree on. On this point no-one is winning and no-one is losing. -James On 05/02/2016, 8:03 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Keith Thank you very much for this full text of the gnso input. I'm aware if the concerns expressed by the gnso, and as I have said several times, I consider them legitimate and relevant, although we may have different opinions on their degree of impact or the means to address them. At the same time we all know that the GAC came a long way to reach a consensus input on the then ST18, now rec11. And such difficulties were based on concerns from a relevant number of governments whose concerns I feel we should also consider legitimate and worth consideration. Rec11 was then based on a compromise, which still raised concerns from sectors of the gnso and from a number of governments. I think the solution is not to privilege parts of the community in reaching a solution. We need to take on board as many stakeholders and constituencies as possible. In the last weeks we agreed, we all agreed, to take up important points made by the gnso on rec11: clarify that the Board has no new obligations, the obligation of a clear rationale, the clarification that Board decisions always have to be consistent with Bylaws, irrespective of the source of the advice on which such a decision is based. On rec10 we also made additions to address concerns expressed around the accountability review of the GAC. And again on rec11 -as I also said- I felt that Becky's initial proposal (at least as some of us understood it) was one possible means. And I think that if we narrow it down to the community IRP it could work. But to word it in such broad terms as it is now has the effect I have repeatedly described. Our lawyers could analyze the scooe of such an exception and advise us. If we agree that the GAC is a legitimate participant in the community mechanism, as we habe repeatedly and consistently agreed, then we cannot favour an overbroad carve-out, because the GAC would not be able to participate on an equal footing in the community mechanism. In such case we need to clarify and word the carve-out in such terms that it is clear that we just want a very narrow carve-out and that this will not prevent the GAC from normally participating in the community mechanism, with a few exceptions. If the intention is to have a broad carve-out, then we would not be able to agree. But I hope that we are in the first case. best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 05.02.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>: Thanks Jorge, A majority of the GNSO's constituent groups view the combination of Rec-1, Rec-10 and Rec-11 as "interlinked." The majority of GNSO groups (sufficient to reject) view ANY change of Board voting threshold for GAC consensus advice to be highly problematic. The GNSO's willingness to consider and accept Kavouss' suggested compromise of 60% is entirely dependent upon the further clarifications suggested by Becky in the Arasteh/Burr proposal. I've attached the GNSO Council comments, which are a summary of the GNSO groups comments, for your further review. Here are the relevant texts: From the GNSO Comments on Rec-1: "Some in the GNSO have identified a clear link with Recommendations #10 & #11 and are of the view that the current balance between SO/ACs needs to be preserved in the Empowered Community, especially with respect to the GAC." [This means the status quo should be maintained -- the GAC should remain advisory and not have a decisional role.] From the GNSO Comment on Rec-10: "There are some concerns within the GNSO with the top down nature of accountability reviews, and the exemption of the GAC from this community requirement. It is also troubling that the GAC, further empowered if Recommendations #1 and #11 are adopted, would be exempted from the same periodic reviews as the other SO/ACs. All participants in the Community Mechanism should be subject to equivalent accountability reviews." From the GNSO Comment on Rec-11: "There is broad opposition to this recommendation as written. Most SG/Cs do not support the proposal to raise the threshold for a Board vote to reject GAC advice. All expressed serious concerns over the lack of specificity in the recommendation in relation to the requirements for GAC advice (such as the provision of rationale) and the possibility that this recommendation, if adopted, could unduly change the nature of the Board-GAC relationship and/or the position of the GAC vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs also believe that any CCWG recommendation on this topic should retain the current flexibility in the Bylaws where the Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in order to reject GAC advice." "IPC, NCSG and the Registrars SG expressly objected to changing and specifying the threshold for Board action; the Registries SG and ISPCP Constituency did not object expressly but highlighted significant concerns about the implications of such a change. The Registries SG stated it was unlikely to support the 2/3 threshold for Board action unless three additional requirements (provision of a rationale, consistency with ICANN bylaws and within GAC scope, and defined consensus) applied to such GAC Advice. While BC and NPOC supported the change, both nevertheless also noted concerns over the implications, with the BC's support expressly conditioned upon certain qualifications being made to the proposal." Regards, Keith -----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 2:16 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es<mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>; jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>; thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Keith I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements? The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right? Best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>: Dear Jorge, Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations. The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it. If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute. Regards, Keith -----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es<mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>; jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>; thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Keith This is an interesting question. But what we have on the table is the third draft report. This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some gnso members (who have proposed this) best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>: We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object? Regards, Keith From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM To: James M. Bladel; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; Drazek, Keith Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-c<mailto:accountability-cross-c> ommunity@icann.org<mailto:ommunity@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either. Best Rafael Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos. -------- Original message -------- From: "James M. Bladel" Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00) To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-c<mailto:accountability-cross-c> ommunity@icann.org<mailto:ommunity@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Hello Jorge - Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC? Thanks- J. On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com%3cmailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__verisign.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=x-VQJVnOKEttRNXDaGtjg0qBUkOPFRCcWRuO7Pchyco&e=>>>>: The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days. Regards, Keith Sent from my iPhone On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com><mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>> wrote: Hi Paul, You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here. I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible. As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC. I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following: 1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP) I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it) Regards On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com><mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbr<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbr> an chc <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b>>onsulting.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__onsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=5KHnoAhrAjr7fAxFcnt_UZe1YtILpdAqVarvKqTo3pE&e=><http://onsulting.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__onsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=5KHnoAhrAjr7fAxFcnt_UZe1YtILpdAqVarvKqTo3pE&e=>>>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com><mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbra<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbra> nc hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rose nz weig@redbranchco> nsulting.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=MWcLj9QiWa6FkG9XkRKeXbvFGGWMKuSdoJZOVx0uFBM&e=><http://nsulting.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=MWcLj9QiWa6FkG9XkRKeXbvFGGWMKuSdoJZOVx0uFBM&e=>>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660><tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650><tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739><tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:B<mailto:B> ec ky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:ky.Burr@neustar.biz>%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>>>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavall<mailto:olgacavall> i@ gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=>>>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>>> <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross<mailto:accountability-cross> -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross<mailto:accountability-cross> -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932><tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367><tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / +neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>> <http://www.neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=HrdlbmWrCO5JBFBy01CZkxzYffOEnj734nbsz6rmC3w&e=>> On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>> wrote: Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mai lt o:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=>%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=>> escribió: Kavouss, Becky responded to this yesterday: Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this. I expect she will follow up soon. Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP. I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday. If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it. Best, Brett On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: ka vouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:vouss.arasteh@gmail.com>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>><mailto :k avo <mailto:kavo%0b<mailto:kavo%250b>>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>>> wrote: Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged): == Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountabil<mailto:accountabil> it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr><mailto:a<mailto:a> cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann>. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org<mailto:es@icann.org>>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc<mailto:acc> ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cro<mailto:accountability-cro> ss -community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:greg<mailto:greg> sh atanipc@gmail.com<mailto:atanipc@gmail.com>%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>><mailto:gregsha<mailto:gregsha> t <mailto:gregshat%0b<mailto:gregshat%250b>>>>>anipc@gmail.com<mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.ed u% 3cmailto:milton@gatech.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gatech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=SPAXWQC6Dsx9-zWUlTgefSw18mVTdfNEVkBp5qftNNY&e=>>><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<ma <mailto:milton@gatech.edu%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton@gatech.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gatech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=SPAXWQC6Dsx9-zWUlTgefSw18mVTdfNEVkBp5qftNNY&e=><http://gat<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gat&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=WEOI2s3x2bkzEcuI6sDmynpBYdCfQu9Gx1c8Dm9xmCA&e=> ech.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=q57UP-BUi36awfkk9v0_QmW_zo-iqc1g58fkIrTD4OM&e=>>>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cros<mailto:accountability-cros> s- com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun ta bility-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability-cross-comm><mailto:accountab<mailto:accountab> il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 cm ailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing I have a proposal for discussion. Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission. I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold. Just a thought - === Regards Jorge ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097<tel:202-608-6097> http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http -3 A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org-253chttps-3A_urldefense.proofpoint.com_v2_url-3Fu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=Gtc6E6VHfgb_i0XKDZwjHaHm1RkAHvgH4oUQoopUHXc&e=> =h ttp-3A__> heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq 8M o8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__-26gt-3B-26gt-3B.org-5F-26d-3Dcwigaq-26c-3Dmoptnlvtietedalc-5Flulrw-26r-3D62cjfoifzm&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=REtqw8XE73ZxbVu-e_HhGfX4ZGLz4PLhRG4i3BAn3uU&e=> 6X _GRlaq8Mo8T> jDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolh J2 mGN u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< ma ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>> ] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka<mailto:juka> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka<mailto:juka> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro<mailto:accountability-cro> ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com><m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro<mailto:accountability-cro> ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com><m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> ; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky<mailto:Becky>. Bu rr@neustar.biz<mailto:rr@neustar.biz>%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>>><mailto:Becky.Burr<mailto:Becky.Burr> <mailto:Becky.Burr%0b<mailto:Becky.Burr%250b>>>>>@neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><mailto:Becky<mailto:Becky> .Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Burr@neustar.biz>>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert<mailto:thomas@rickert> .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu<mailto:Mathieu>. Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Weill@afnic.fr>%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afnic.fr&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=Z8tDOMEnBfhmdWPrAzVwyG-OZ_TAZbVRCV4ezC9Uxyc&e=>>><mailto:Mathieu.We<mailto:Mathieu.We> <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b<mailto:Mathieu.We%250b>>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math<mailto:Math> ieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli<mailto:leonfeli> pe @sanchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>>><mailto:leonfelipe@s<mailto:leonfelipe@s> <mailto:leonfelipe@s<mailto:leonfelipe@s>%0b>>>>anchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=><http://anchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=>><mailto:leonfeli<mailto:leonfeli> pe@sanchez.mx<mailto:pe@sanchez.mx>>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin. ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider @b akom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__akom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=5m1Wu4_QF6gCTq1iMMVb_273bS7EFLGYD9CyaejWu-E&e=>>> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bak<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bak> om .ad <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bako m.ad<http://m.ad>%0b>>>>min.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__min.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=jjfmbIWBm7Ffx6QzdROvG_rTO66AgO3JjqjFneu7scI&e=><http://min.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__min.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=jjfmbIWBm7Ffx6QzdROvG_rTO66AgO3JjqjFneu7scI&e=>>>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations. Regards Jorge Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< ma ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>> ] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka<mailto:juka> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka<mailto:juka> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro<mailto:accountability-cro> ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com><m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro<mailto:accountability-cro> ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com><m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote: Dear all I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday. A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it. This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant. Regards Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountabil<mailto:accountabil> it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr><mailto:a<mailto:a> cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann>. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org<mailto:es@icann.org>>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc<mailto:acc> ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cro<mailto:accountability-cro> ss -community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro<mailto:accountability-cro> ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com><m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion: ³ Burr Proposal: ? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23. The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.² However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call. Best regards, Finn and Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000<tel:%2B45%203529%201000> Direct: +45 35291308<tel:%2B45%2035291308> E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto :j ukacz@erst.dk<mailto:ukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukac<mailto:jukac> z@erst.dk<mailto:z@erst.dk><mailto:z@erst.dk>>> http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmB3s21IfuNbh13VrL_P3pm-s8gzWnm-3M6j6nI_348&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v 2/ url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk-253chttps-3A_urldefense.proofpoint&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=Ijs5G7Ftbj3C-WUg-8E5J-aeUiLlyHyrAA9dgrbn_kg&e=>. co m/v2/url> ?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk><http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__3a-5F-5Fwww.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=WEbCbAM7VuGbzjgvfUiwjCbGrx9N0Rf_XbVUUhaPeeY&e=>>&d =C wIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioS UB 1PW w WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= > MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountabil<mailto:accountabil> it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr><mailto:a<mailto:a> cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann>. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org<mailto:es@icann.org>>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc<mailto:acc> ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cro<mailto:accountability-cro> ss -community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cros<mailto:accountability-cros> s- com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun ta bility-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability-cross-comm><mailto:accountab<mailto:accountab> il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 cm ailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus! 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) * Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><http://www.neus<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neus&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=2PUd-2B5kmyJjzfZM90Pim0LySYCYfR8ID6S63UrXus&e=> ta r.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=ENjjcG0Hicj2PD0T3Zsbg22ppEoqQxmwliklHtZlPSI&e=><http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz-253e-253chttp-3A_www.neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=iTpR0rMW7n5cpCjw_ksnW_E7ByuJeJSZk243T0P7V7c&e=>>> From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: ka vouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:vouss.arasteh@gmail.com>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>><mailto :k avo <mailto:kavo%0b<mailto:kavo%250b>>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail>. com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro<mailto:accountability-cro> ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com><m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> , Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky<mailto:becky>. bu rr@neustar.biz<mailto:rr@neustar.biz>%3cmailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>>><mailto:becky.burr<mailto:becky.burr> <mailto:becky.burr%0b<mailto:becky.burr%250b>>>>>@neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><mailto:becky<mailto:becky> .burr@neustar.biz<mailto:burr@neustar.biz>>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu<mailto:Mathieu>. Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Weill@afnic.fr>%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afnic.fr&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=Z8tDOMEnBfhmdWPrAzVwyG-OZ_TAZbVRCV4ezC9Uxyc&e=>>><mailto:Mathieu.We<mailto:Mathieu.We> <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b<mailto:Mathieu.We%250b>>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math<mailto:Math> ieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert<mailto:thomas@rickert> .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli<mailto:leonfeli> pe @sanchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>>><mailto:leonfelipe@s<mailto:leonfelipe@s> <mailto:leonfelipe@s<mailto:leonfelipe@s>%0b>>>>anchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=><http://anchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=>><mailto:leonfeli<mailto:leonfeli> pe@sanchez.mx<mailto:pe@sanchez.mx>>>> Subject: <no subject> Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings, I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community. We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11 We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together. However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection. We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability. Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed . The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical 1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it. Package Deal 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) · Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; · Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and · Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cros<mailto:Accountability-Cros> s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm><mailto:Accountab<mailto:Accountab> il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 cm ailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e = <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ ma ilm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lm%0b>>>>a n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIE Te DAL C _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7- 2H ozb e OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X- wC 7M& e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cros<mailto:Accountability-Cros> s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm><mailto:Accountab<mailto:Accountab> il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 cm ailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e = _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cros<mailto:Accountability-Cros> s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e = _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross<mailto:Accountability-Cross> -C omm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Account ab ility-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma il man _ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD AL C_l U Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hoz be OZX Y oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e= _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-<mailto:Accountability-Cross-> Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-<mailto:Accountability-Cross-> Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-<mailto:Accountability-Cross-> Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-<mailto:Accountability-Cross-> Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-<mailto:Accountability-Cross-> Co mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-C<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C> ommunity@icann.org<mailto:ommunity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> <GNSO Council Response to CCWG-Accountability - FINAL - 22 January 2016.pdf> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear James, Certainly I agree with you that we should not rush. However, you very rightly said *"Please allow our lawyers do prepare what they are able to do for the call and Im sure that formal written opinion will come when it is available.* *Also recognise that this is the weekend and full teams may not be available"* .That is a valid approach which was missing in Holly's mail and you did kindly pick it up for which I am grateful to you. Yr statement is very valid and logique Kavouss 2016-02-07 15:33 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>:
Legal analysis cannot be rushed or it is of no value to any of us. Please allow our lawyers do prepare what they are able to do for the call and Im sure that formal written opinion will come when it is available. Also recognise that this is the weekend and full teams may not be available.
-james
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: Sunday 7 February 2016 at 2:19 p.m. To: "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory@sidley.com> Cc: "ICANN@adlercolvin.com" <ICANN@adlercolvin.com>, Thomas Rickert < thomas@rickert.net>, Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, ACCT-Staff < acct-staff@icann.org>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issu
Dear Holly, Thank you very much. But the issue is too delicate, complex and sensitive. We do not accept only verbal explanation as said by you Quote *" we will try to be prepared to address on the call."* *Unquote* We need a memo describing t various aspects of the matter. Pls kindly parepare a MEMO i HEREBY REQUEST THE cO-Chair to urge our legal Council to prepare a formal MEMO. Failure to do so, considerable delay may be caused.to the entire process. GAC MEMBERS WOULD CERTAINLY NOT HAPPY FOR ANY VERBAL EXPLANATION AND PERHAPS gnso too Regards Kavouss
2016-02-07 14:46 GMT+01:00 Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com>:
Hi Thomas, we will try to be prepared to address on the call. Holly
Sent with Good (www.good.com)
------------------------------ *From:* Thomas Rickert *Sent:* Saturday, February 06, 2016 03:03:45 PM *To:* Rosemary E. Fei; Gregory, Holly; Sidley ICANN CCWG; ICANN@adlercolvin.com *Cc:* León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Mathieu Weill; ACCT-Staff; Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issu
Dear Rosemary and Holly, This is to certify the review of the questions in the e-mail below. We do know this is extremely short notice, but it would be great if the answers could inform our discussion on this very topic next Monday, February 8th, 12.00 UTC. We do appreciate that time is too short for a written memo, but maybe one of you or team could offer initial answers during the call.
I hope to be correct in assuming that you have seen the compromise proposal under consideration with input primarily from Kavouss and Becky. Also, you may find Rafael's previous questions and the answers offered by Becky informative. Should these not be known, please send a note to staff so they can forward them to you.
Thank you very much.
Kind regards, Thomas
--- rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail:
*Von:* "Perez Galindo, Rafael" <RPEREZGA@minetur.es> *Datum:* 6. Februar 2016 um 11:32:55 MEZ *An:* James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>, " Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, " kdrazek@verisign.com" <kdrazek@verisign.com> *Kopie:* "thomas@rickert.net" <thomas@rickert.net>, " accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Betreff:* *RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues*
Dear Co-chairs,
Det me draw your attention to the latest developments in the discussions regarding Rec 11 (former ST 18), namely the carve-out system put forward by Becky and backed by the GNSO.
While thanking Becky for this proposal, I believe we can all agree to acknowledge that the carve-out is not a mere adjustment, nor a tweak to complete or shape a package of measures, but it constitutes a major essential change, for it actually regulates the functioning of the EC with regards to the GAC, and could raise important political and legal concerns.
Hence, and prior to any possible endorsement, I kindly ask that a detailed legal analisys of the proposed text be commissioned to the Legal assistance by the Co-Chairs:
- who would decide whether the carve-out is applicable to a certain issue to be subject to a community decision
- according to what standard would that decision be taken? For instance: is it enough if Board mentions GAC Advice in its rationale as a source for its decision. Or would a substantial test be applied, i.e. checked whether the Board decision follows GAC Advice? In the latter case, would the carve-out also apply if the GAC Advice is only partially followed?
- what means of redress would be available for any party not in agreement with such a decision?
- would the GAC, according to this wording, be able to participate fully in the decision-making of the community mechanism on the following topics?:
1. Any Board decision on policies or implementation of delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs, which would be taken. having regard, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs)
2. Any Board decision on policy or implementation of new gTLDs, which would also take into consideration, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on new gTLDs)
Thank you and best regards
Rafael
________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of James Gannon [james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: 05 February 2016 21:15 To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; kdrazek@verisign.com Cc: thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Jorge, I think at this point the GAC needs to go back and consider the proposition that is on the table the the GNSO appears to be in a position to support.
We do not have the timelines available to us to continue to argue over this, the GNSO has come to rough support on a position now, I feel its time for the GAC to go back to its own processes with this proposition to evaluate it. We are all aware of the GACs wants in this, but that does not mean that the GNSO community will agree to them as we have laid out in our comments to the 3rd Draft proposal.
I feel that if we keep going around in circles over what the GNSO and GAC are potentially able to negotiate we will never end this process, and I think we all want to attempt to bring this to a close ASAP. I hope that the GAC can continue to show its flexibility and ability to compromise and work together with the broad community on this, no-one is setting out to disenfranchise any stakeholder group here, we are all trying to make this the least bad solution that we can all agree on. On this point no-one is winning and no-one is losing.
-James
On 05/02/2016, 8:03 p.m., " accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" < accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Keith
Thank you very much for this full text of the gnso input.
I'm aware if the concerns expressed by the gnso, and as I have said several times, I consider them legitimate and relevant, although we may have different opinions on their degree of impact or the means to address them.
At the same time we all know that the GAC came a long way to reach a consensus input on the then ST18, now rec11. And such difficulties were based on concerns from a relevant number of governments whose concerns I feel we should also consider legitimate and worth consideration.
Rec11 was then based on a compromise, which still raised concerns from sectors of the gnso and from a number of governments.
I think the solution is not to privilege parts of the community in reaching a solution.
We need to take on board as many stakeholders and constituencies as possible.
In the last weeks we agreed, we all agreed, to take up important points made by the gnso on rec11: clarify that the Board has no new obligations, the obligation of a clear rationale, the clarification that Board decisions always have to be consistent with Bylaws, irrespective of the source of the advice on which such a decision is based.
On rec10 we also made additions to address concerns expressed around the accountability review of the GAC.
And again on rec11 -as I also said- I felt that Becky's initial proposal (at least as some of us understood it) was one possible means. And I think that if we narrow it down to the community IRP it could work.
But to word it in such broad terms as it is now has the effect I have repeatedly described. Our lawyers could analyze the scooe of such an exception and advise us.
If we agree that the GAC is a legitimate participant in the community mechanism, as we habe repeatedly and consistently agreed, then we cannot favour an overbroad carve-out, because the GAC would not be able to participate on an equal footing in the community mechanism.
In such case we need to clarify and word the carve-out in such terms that it is clear that we just want a very narrow carve-out and that this will not prevent the GAC from normally participating in the community mechanism, with a few exceptions.
If the intention is to have a broad carve-out, then we would not be able to agree.
But I hope that we are in the first case.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Thanks Jorge,
A majority of the GNSO's constituent groups view the combination of Rec-1, Rec-10 and Rec-11 as "interlinked." The majority of GNSO groups (sufficient to reject) view ANY change of Board voting threshold for GAC consensus advice to be highly problematic. The GNSO's willingness to consider and accept Kavouss' suggested compromise of 60% is entirely dependent upon the further clarifications suggested by Becky in the Arasteh/Burr proposal.
I've attached the GNSO Council comments, which are a summary of the GNSO groups comments, for your further review. Here are the relevant texts:
From the GNSO Comments on Rec-1:
"Some in the GNSO have identified a clear link with Recommendations #10 & #11 and are of the view that the current balance between SO/ACs needs to be preserved in the Empowered Community, especially with respect to the GAC." [This means the status quo should be maintained -- the GAC should remain advisory and not have a decisional role.]
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-10:
"There are some concerns within the GNSO with the top down nature of accountability reviews, and the exemption of the GAC from this community requirement. It is also troubling that the GAC, further empowered if Recommendations #1 and #11 are adopted, would be exempted from the same periodic reviews as the other SO/ACs. All participants in the Community Mechanism should be subject to equivalent accountability reviews."
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-11:
"There is broad opposition to this recommendation as written. Most SG/Cs do not support the proposal to raise the threshold for a Board vote to reject GAC advice. All expressed serious concerns over the
lack of specificity in the recommendation in relation to the requirements for GAC advice (such as the provision of rationale) and the possibility that this recommendation, if adopted, could unduly change the nature of the Board-GAC relationship and/or the position of the GAC vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs also believe that any CCWG recommendation on this topic should retain the current flexibility in the Bylaws where the Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in order to reject GAC advice."
"IPC, NCSG and the Registrars SG expressly objected to changing and specifying the threshold for Board action; the Registries SG and ISPCP Constituency did not object expressly but highlighted significant concerns about the implications of such a change. The Registries SG stated it was unlikely to support the 2/3 threshold for Board action unless three additional requirements (provision of a rationale, consistency with ICANN bylaws and within GAC scope, and defined consensus) applied to such GAC Advice. While BC and NPOC supported the change, both nevertheless also noted concerns over the implications, with the BC's support expressly conditioned upon certain qualifications being made to the proposal."
Regards,
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>]
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 2:16 PM
To: Drazek, Keith
Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements?
The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right?
Best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Dear Jorge,
Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations.
The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it.
If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute.
Regards,
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>]
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM
To: Drazek, Keith
Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
and 11 issues
Dear Keith
This is an interesting question.
But what we have on the table is the third draft report.
This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a
higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the
consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some
gnso members (who have proposed this)
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com< mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <kdrazek@verisign.com>>>:
We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object?
Regards,
Keith
From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es <RPEREZGA@minetur.es>]
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM
To: James M. Bladel;
Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>;
Drazek, Keith
Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>>;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c
ommunity@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
and 11 issues
It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either.
Best
Rafael
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.
-------- Original message --------
From: "James M. Bladel"
Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00)
To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>,
kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <kdrazek@verisign.com>>
Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>>,
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c
ommunity@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
and 11 issues
Hello Jorge -
Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC?
Thanks-
J.
On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%20on%0bbehalf%20of% 20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>"
<accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%20on%20behalf%20of% 0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a
discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and
little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith
<kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <kdrazek@verisign.com>< mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <kdrazek@verisign.com>%3cmailto:kdrazek@ <kdrazek@>verisign.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__verisign.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=...>
:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives
the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold
to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates
appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way
forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11.
Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards,
Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji
<seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com><mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@ <seun.ojedeji@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-).
While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting
right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the
community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and
that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same
level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some
extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain
situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not
give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making
power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto
GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of
the
following:
1. Rejected by board
2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by
an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission.
3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of
ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome
of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground
and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not
see
it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig"
<paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbr
an
chc
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>%3c mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b> <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b%3E>> onsulting.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__onsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c...> <http://onsulting.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__onsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=5KHnoAhrAjr7fAxFcnt_UZe1YtILpdAqVarvKqTo3pE&e=>>>> wrote:
Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is
the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a
real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbra
nc
hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>%3cmailto:paul.rose <paul.rose>
nz
weig@redbranchco>
nsulting.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=...> <http://nsulting.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=...>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>>
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message-----
From: Burr, Becky
[mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>< mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:B
ec ky.Burr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@ <Becky.Burr@>neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
]
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM
To: Olga Cavalli
<olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavall
i@ gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...> %3cmailto:olgacavalli@ <olgacavalli@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
;
Schaefer, Brett
<Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:
Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@ <Brett.Schaefer@> heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=...>
Cc:
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>< mailto:thomas@rickert.n <thomas@rickert.n>
et
%3cmailto:thomas@ <thomas@>rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>< mailto:thomas@rickert.n <thomas@rickert.n>
et
%3cmailto:thomas@ <thomas@>rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross
-c
omm
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross
-c
omm
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
and
11
issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been
that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an
exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note
Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further
restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy
General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932 <%2B1.202.533.2932>> Mobile:
+1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367 <%2B1.202.352.6367>> /
+neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...> <http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<http://www.neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ...>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli"
<olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <olgacavalli@gmail.com>%3cmailto:olgacavalli@ <olgacavalli@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>> wrote:
Brett
there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett
<Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mai
lt
o:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=...> %3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@ <Brett.Schaefer@>heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=...>
escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table
when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to
Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email
demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the
GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent,
but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of
Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve
this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have
arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:
ka
vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@ <kavouss.arasteh@> gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
<mailto
:k
avo
<mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com <uss.arasteh@gmail.com>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@ <kavouss.arasteh@> gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie
As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have
serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in
the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and
send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current
text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED
TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion.
As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be
more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr
revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial
text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people.
Awaiting your action , I remain
Regards
Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <Jorge.Cancio@> bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&...>
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>> <%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a>
dmin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00q...> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3c mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom <Jorge.Cancio@bakom>
.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00...>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <Jorge.Cancio@> bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&...>
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>> <%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3c mailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to
(highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil
it
y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:
accountability-c>
ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a
cc
oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org <ross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabil <accountabil>
it
y-cr%3cmailto:accoun <accoun>>
tability-cr>
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.
or
g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org <oss-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:oss-community-bou <oss-community-bou>
nc
es@icann.org>>>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:acc
ou
nta
bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr <accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr>
os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky
Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05
An: Greg Shatan
<gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:greg
sh
atanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@ <gregshatanipc@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
<mailto:gregsha
t
<mailto:gregshat%0b>>>>anipc@gmail.com<mailto:anipc@gmail.com <anipc@gmail.com>><mailto:
gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller,
Milton L
<milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu <milton@gatech.edu>< mailto:milton@gatech.ed <milton@gatech.ed>
u% 3cmailto:milton@ <milton@>gatech.edu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gatech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od...>
<mailto:milton@gatech.edu <milton@gatech.edu><ma
<mailto:milton@gatech.edu <milton@gatech.edu>%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton@ gatech.edu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gatech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od...> <http://gat <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gat&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XT...>
ech.edu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00q...>
Cc:
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros
s-
com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accoun <accoun>
ta
bility-cross-com>
munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab
il
ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>%3e%3c mailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 <accountability-cross-comm%253>
cm
ailto:accountability>
-cross-comm>
unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>< mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold,
GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only
consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we
accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC
cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of
community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.
In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than
two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the
Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of
ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might
otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the
2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________
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
http://heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=...> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http
-3
A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org-253chttps-3...>
=h
ttp-3A__>
heritage
http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq
8M
o8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__-26gt-3B-26gt-3B.org-5F-...>
6X
_GRlaq8Mo8T>
jDmrxdYa
hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolh
J2
mGN
u
8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= >
Von: Kavouss Arasteh
[mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>< mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><
ma
ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...> %3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@ <kavouss.arasteh@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
]
Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <Jorge.Cancio@> bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&...>
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>> <%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a>
dmin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00q...> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3c mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom <Jorge.Cancio@bakom>
.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00...>
Cc:
<jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>< mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:
jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:juka
<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:juka%0b>>> <juka%0b%3E%3E%3E>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d <cz@erst.d>
k>>>>
<jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>< mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:
jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:juka
<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:juka%0b>>> <juka%0b%3E%3E%3E>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d <cz@erst.d>
k>>>>;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-co
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mmunity@icann.org>%3e%3c mailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability <accountability>>
-cross-com>
munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>< mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-co
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mmunity@icann.org>%3e%3c mailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability <accountability>>
-cross-com>
munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>< mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
;
Becky Burr
<Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.
Bu
rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@ <Becky.Burr@>neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<mailto:Becky.Burr
<mailto:Becky.Burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...> <http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<mailto:Becky
.Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert
.n et%3cmailto:thomas@ <thomas@>rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>
<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>%0b>>>>< mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>>>>;
Mathieu Weill
<Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.
Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@ <Mathieu.Weill@>afnic.fr <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afnic.fr&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00...>
<mailto:Mathieu.We
<mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr <ill@afnic.fr>
<mailto:Math
ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe
Sánchez Ambía
<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli
pe @sanchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od...> %3cmailto:leonfelipe@ <leonfelipe@>sanchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od...>
<mailto:leonfelipe@s
<mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...> <http://anchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
<mailto:leonfeli
pe@sanchez.mx>>>;
Schneider Thomas BAKOM
<Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin>.
ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider <Thomas.Schneider>
@b
akom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__akom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c...>
<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bak
om
.ad
<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bako <Thomas.Schneider@bako>
m.ad%0b>>>>min.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__min.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP...> <http://min.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__min.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP...>
Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve
Recommendation
1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie,
Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member
requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial
Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page
deal" if includes your original text.
Regards
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <Jorge.Cancio@> bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&...>
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>> <%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a>
dmin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00q...> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3c mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom <Jorge.Cancio@bakom>
.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00...>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <Jorge.Cancio@> bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&...>
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>> <%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3c mailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of
community
IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many
concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh
[mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>< mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><
ma
ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...> %3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@ <kavouss.arasteh@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
]
Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <Jorge.Cancio@> bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&...>
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>> <%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a>
dmin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00q...> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3c mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom <Jorge.Cancio@bakom>
.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00...>
Cc:
<jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>< mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:
jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:juka
<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:juka%0b>>> <juka%0b%3E%3E%3E>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d <cz@erst.d>
k>>>>
<jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>< mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:
jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:juka
<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:juka%0b>>> <juka%0b%3E%3E%3E>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d <cz@erst.d>
k>>>>;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-co
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mmunity@icann.org>%3e%3c mailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability <accountability>>
-cross-com>
munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>< mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-co
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mmunity@icann.org>%3e%3c mailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability <accountability>>
-cross-com>
munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>< mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation
1 and 11 issues
Dear All,
Why Not taking initial Beckie,s
Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other
questions resulted from het revised text.
Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards
Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <Jorge.Cancio@> bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&...>
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>> <%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a>
dmin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00q...> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3c mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom <Jorge.Cancio@bakom>
.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00...>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <Jorge.Cancio@> bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&...>
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>> <%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3c mailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote:
Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which
probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions
we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any
community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad
and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community
decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was
directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil
it
y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:
accountability-c>
ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a
cc
oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org <ross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabil <accountabil>
it
y-cr%3cmailto:accoun <accoun>>
tability-cr>
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.
or
g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org <oss-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:oss-community-bou <oss-community-bou>
nc
es@icann.org>>>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:acc
ou
nta
bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr <accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr>
os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja
Wolman
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34
An: 'CCWG Accountability'
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-co
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mmunity@icann.org>%3e%3c mailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability <accountability>>
-cross-com>
munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>< mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation
1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in
order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the
proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by
Becky (email of 2
February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³
Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of
Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the
Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community
power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the
Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in
community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will
not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to
initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise
a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN
Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a
mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice
supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting
the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause
ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text
suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is
that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision
based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it
refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision
based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above)
should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus
Langelinie Allé 17
DK-2100 København Ø
Telephone: +45 3529 1000
Direct: +45 35291308
E-mail:
jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>>< mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto
:j
ukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukac
z@erst.dk<mailto:z@erst.dk <z@erst.dk>>>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk...> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v
2/
url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk...> .
co
m/v2/url>
?u=http-
3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__3a-5F-5Fwww.erhvervsstyr...>
&d
=C wIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif
zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioS
UB
1PW
w
WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil
it
y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:
accountability-c>
ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a
cc
oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org <ross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabil <accountabil>
it
y-cr%3cmailto:accoun <accoun>>
tability-cr>
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.
or
g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org <oss-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:oss-community-bou <oss-community-bou>
nc
es@icann.org>>>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:acc
ou
nta
bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr <accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr>
os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky
Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19
Til: Kavouss Arasteh;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros
s-
com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accoun <accoun>
ta
bility-cross-com>
munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab
il
ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>%3e%3c mailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 <accountability-cross-comm%253>
cm
ailto:accountability>
-cross-comm>
unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>< mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>>;
Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and
11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been
working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a
consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to
resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am
supportive of this package deal, as described below (the
description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I
appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table
and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the
Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community
power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free
to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity,
but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed
thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a
Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This
carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work
with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to
implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in
Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out
and add the following language to cover situations that would
otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where
the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the
community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in
support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in
support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of
GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority
requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the
standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8
February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above
as first final reading;
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above
as first final reading; and
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above
as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd
final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February,
noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach
consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on
Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 /
neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...> <http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...> <http://www.neus <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neus&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00...>
ta r.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2...> <http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz-253e-253chtt...>
From: Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:
ka
vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@ <kavouss.arasteh@> gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
<mailto
:k
avo
<mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.
com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com <uss.arasteh@gmail.com>%3c mailto:kavouss.arasteh@ <kavouss.arasteh@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM
To: Accountability Community
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-co
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mmunity@icann.org>%3e%3c mailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability <accountability>>
-cross-com>
munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>< mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
,
Becky Burr
<becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz <becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.
bu
rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:becky.burr@ <becky.burr@>neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<mailto:becky.burr
<mailto:becky.burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...> <http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<mailto:becky
.burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill
<Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.
Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@ <Mathieu.Weill@>afnic.fr <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afnic.fr&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00...>
<mailto:Mathieu.We
<mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr <ill@afnic.fr>
<mailto:Math
ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert
.n et%3cmailto:thomas@ <thomas@>rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>
<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>%0b>>>>< mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>>>>, León
Felipe Sánchez
Ambía
<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli
pe @sanchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od...> %3cmailto:leonfelipe@ <leonfelipe@>sanchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od...>
<mailto:leonfelipe@s
<mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...> <http://anchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
<mailto:leonfeli
pe@sanchez.mx>>>
Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you:
We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a
coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of
assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some
adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the
Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in
advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA
stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is
working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual
meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we
need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible
set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely
insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single
SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to
the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well
as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the
interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network
connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of
the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the
entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last
kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last
kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our
current position which is different from each other and not rule
out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession
towards each other position .We need to take every possible
initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a
participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should
really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be
accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/
decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by
Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3.
Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the
Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No
other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6.
Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be
held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is
a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the
CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are
of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that
my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming
change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard
procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the
compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb
and
8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb.
Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested
clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or
standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly
necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the
Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community
power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free
to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity,
but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed
thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a
Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This
carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work
with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to
implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in
Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out
and add the following language to cover situations that would
otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where
the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the
community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in
support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in
support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of
GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority
requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the
standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8
February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above
as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above
as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described
above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd
final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February,
noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach
consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on
Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros
s-
Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accoun <Accoun>
ta
bility-Cross-Com>
munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab
il
ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>%3e%3c mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 <Accountability-Cross-Comm%253>
cm
ailto:Accountability>
-Cross-Comm>
unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>< mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m
ai
lma
n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET
eD
ALC
_
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2
Ho
zbe
O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w
C7
M&e
=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_
ma
ilm
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai
lm%0b>>>>a
n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIE
Te
DAL
C
_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-
2H
ozb
e
OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-
wC
7M&
e
= >
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros
s-
Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accoun <Accoun>
ta
bility-Cross-Com>
munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab
il
ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>%3e%3c mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 <Accountability-Cross-Comm%253>
cm
ailto:Accountability>
-Cross-Comm>
unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>< mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m
ai
lma
n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET
eD
ALC
_
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2
Ho
zbe
O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w
C7
M&e
=
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros
s-
Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accoun <Accoun>
ta
bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m
ai
lma
n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET
eD
ALC
_
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2
Ho
zbe
O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w
C7
M&e
=
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross
-C
omm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Account <Account>
ab
ility-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma
il
man
_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD
AL
C_l
U
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hoz
be
OZX
Y
oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&
e=
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
Co
mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accounta <Accounta>
bi
lity-Cross-Commu>
nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org <nity@icann.org>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
Co
mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accounta <Accounta>
bi
lity-Cross-Commu>
nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org <nity@icann.org>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
Co
mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accounta <Accounta>
bi
lity-Cross-Commu>
nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org <nity@icann.org>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
Co
mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accounta <Accounta>
bi
lity-Cross-Commu>
nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org <nity@icann.org>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
Co
mmunity@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C
ommunity@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
<GNSO Council Response to CCWG-Accountability - FINAL - 22 January 2016.pdf>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
**************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
****************************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Greatly appreciated, James and Kavouss. Both Rosemary and I are traveling this weekend. We will do our best for tomorrow's call but will need more time for a written response. Holly Sent with Good (www.good.com) ________________________________ From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2016 08:37:21 AM To: James Gannon Cc: Gregory, Holly; ICANN@adlercolvin.com; Thomas Rickert; Accountability Cross Community; ACCT-Staff; Sidley ICANN CCWG Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issu Dear James, Certainly I agree with you that we should not rush. However, you very rightly said "Please allow our lawyers do prepare what they are able to do for the call and Im sure that formal written opinion will come when it is available. Also recognise that this is the weekend and full teams may not be available" .That is a valid approach which was missing in Holly's mail and you did kindly pick it up for which I am grateful to you. Yr statement is very valid and logique Kavouss 2016-02-07 15:33 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>: Legal analysis cannot be rushed or it is of no value to any of us. Please allow our lawyers do prepare what they are able to do for the call and Im sure that formal written opinion will come when it is available. Also recognise that this is the weekend and full teams may not be available. -james From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Sunday 7 February 2016 at 2:19 p.m. To: "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>> Cc: "ICANN@adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>" <ICANN@adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issu Dear Holly, Thank you very much. But the issue is too delicate, complex and sensitive. We do not accept only verbal explanation as said by you Quote " we will try to be prepared to address on the call." Unquote We need a memo describing t various aspects of the matter. Pls kindly parepare a MEMO i HEREBY REQUEST THE cO-Chair to urge our legal Council to prepare a formal MEMO. Failure to do so, considerable delay may be caused.to<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__caused.to&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...> the entire process. GAC MEMBERS WOULD CERTAINLY NOT HAPPY FOR ANY VERBAL EXPLANATION AND PERHAPS gnso too Regards Kavouss 2016-02-07 14:46 GMT+01:00 Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>>: Hi Thomas, we will try to be prepared to address on the call. Holly Sent with Good (www.good.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.good.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=...>) ________________________________ From: Thomas Rickert Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2016 03:03:45 PM To: Rosemary E. Fei; Gregory, Holly; Sidley ICANN CCWG; ICANN@adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Mathieu Weill; ACCT-Staff; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issu Dear Rosemary and Holly, This is to certify the review of the questions in the e-mail below. We do know this is extremely short notice, but it would be great if the answers could inform our discussion on this very topic next Monday, February 8th, 12.00 UTC. We do appreciate that time is too short for a written memo, but maybe one of you or team could offer initial answers during the call. I hope to be correct in assuming that you have seen the compromise proposal under consideration with input primarily from Kavouss and Becky. Also, you may find Rafael's previous questions and the answers offered by Becky informative. Should these not be known, please send a note to staff so they can forward them to you. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Thomas --- rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...> Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail: Von: "Perez Galindo, Rafael" <RPEREZGA@minetur.es<mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>> Datum: 6. Februar 2016 um 11:32:55 MEZ An: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>, "kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>" <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Kopie: "thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>" <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>> Betreff: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Co-chairs, Det me draw your attention to the latest developments in the discussions regarding Rec 11 (former ST 18), namely the carve-out system put forward by Becky and backed by the GNSO. While thanking Becky for this proposal, I believe we can all agree to acknowledge that the carve-out is not a mere adjustment, nor a tweak to complete or shape a package of measures, but it constitutes a major essential change, for it actually regulates the functioning of the EC with regards to the GAC, and could raise important political and legal concerns. Hence, and prior to any possible endorsement, I kindly ask that a detailed legal analisys of the proposed text be commissioned to the Legal assistance by the Co-Chairs: - who would decide whether the carve-out is applicable to a certain issue to be subject to a community decision - according to what standard would that decision be taken? For instance: is it enough if Board mentions GAC Advice in its rationale as a source for its decision. Or would a substantial test be applied, i.e. checked whether the Board decision follows GAC Advice? In the latter case, would the carve-out also apply if the GAC Advice is only partially followed? - what means of redress would be available for any party not in agreement with such a decision? - would the GAC, according to this wording, be able to participate fully in the decision-making of the community mechanism on the following topics?: 1. Any Board decision on policies or implementation of delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs, which would be taken. having regard, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs) 2. Any Board decision on policy or implementation of new gTLDs, which would also take into consideration, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on new gTLDs) Thank you and best regards Rafael ________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] on behalf of James Gannon [james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>] Sent: 05 February 2016 21:15 To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Jorge, I think at this point the GAC needs to go back and consider the proposition that is on the table the the GNSO appears to be in a position to support. We do not have the timelines available to us to continue to argue over this, the GNSO has come to rough support on a position now, I feel its time for the GAC to go back to its own processes with this proposition to evaluate it. We are all aware of the GACs wants in this, but that does not mean that the GNSO community will agree to them as we have laid out in our comments to the 3rd Draft proposal. I feel that if we keep going around in circles over what the GNSO and GAC are potentially able to negotiate we will never end this process, and I think we all want to attempt to bring this to a close ASAP. I hope that the GAC can continue to show its flexibility and ability to compromise and work together with the broad community on this, no-one is setting out to disenfranchise any stakeholder group here, we are all trying to make this the least bad solution that we can all agree on. On this point no-one is winning and no-one is losing. -James On 05/02/2016, 8:03 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Keith Thank you very much for this full text of the gnso input. I'm aware if the concerns expressed by the gnso, and as I have said several times, I consider them legitimate and relevant, although we may have different opinions on their degree of impact or the means to address them. At the same time we all know that the GAC came a long way to reach a consensus input on the then ST18, now rec11. And such difficulties were based on concerns from a relevant number of governments whose concerns I feel we should also consider legitimate and worth consideration. Rec11 was then based on a compromise, which still raised concerns from sectors of the gnso and from a number of governments. I think the solution is not to privilege parts of the community in reaching a solution. We need to take on board as many stakeholders and constituencies as possible. In the last weeks we agreed, we all agreed, to take up important points made by the gnso on rec11: clarify that the Board has no new obligations, the obligation of a clear rationale, the clarification that Board decisions always have to be consistent with Bylaws, irrespective of the source of the advice on which such a decision is based. On rec10 we also made additions to address concerns expressed around the accountability review of the GAC. And again on rec11 -as I also said- I felt that Becky's initial proposal (at least as some of us understood it) was one possible means. And I think that if we narrow it down to the community IRP it could work. But to word it in such broad terms as it is now has the effect I have repeatedly described. Our lawyers could analyze the scooe of such an exception and advise us. If we agree that the GAC is a legitimate participant in the community mechanism, as we habe repeatedly and consistently agreed, then we cannot favour an overbroad carve-out, because the GAC would not be able to participate on an equal footing in the community mechanism. In such case we need to clarify and word the carve-out in such terms that it is clear that we just want a very narrow carve-out and that this will not prevent the GAC from normally participating in the community mechanism, with a few exceptions. If the intention is to have a broad carve-out, then we would not be able to agree. But I hope that we are in the first case. best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 05.02.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>: Thanks Jorge, A majority of the GNSO's constituent groups view the combination of Rec-1, Rec-10 and Rec-11 as "interlinked." The majority of GNSO groups (sufficient to reject) view ANY change of Board voting threshold for GAC consensus advice to be highly problematic. The GNSO's willingness to consider and accept Kavouss' suggested compromise of 60% is entirely dependent upon the further clarifications suggested by Becky in the Arasteh/Burr proposal. I've attached the GNSO Council comments, which are a summary of the GNSO groups comments, for your further review. Here are the relevant texts: From the GNSO Comments on Rec-1: "Some in the GNSO have identified a clear link with Recommendations #10 & #11 and are of the view that the current balance between SO/ACs needs to be preserved in the Empowered Community, especially with respect to the GAC." [This means the status quo should be maintained -- the GAC should remain advisory and not have a decisional role.] From the GNSO Comment on Rec-10: "There are some concerns within the GNSO with the top down nature of accountability reviews, and the exemption of the GAC from this community requirement. It is also troubling that the GAC, further empowered if Recommendations #1 and #11 are adopted, would be exempted from the same periodic reviews as the other SO/ACs. All participants in the Community Mechanism should be subject to equivalent accountability reviews." From the GNSO Comment on Rec-11: "There is broad opposition to this recommendation as written. Most SG/Cs do not support the proposal to raise the threshold for a Board vote to reject GAC advice. All expressed serious concerns over the lack of specificity in the recommendation in relation to the requirements for GAC advice (such as the provision of rationale) and the possibility that this recommendation, if adopted, could unduly change the nature of the Board-GAC relationship and/or the position of the GAC vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs also believe that any CCWG recommendation on this topic should retain the current flexibility in the Bylaws where the Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in order to reject GAC advice." "IPC, NCSG and the Registrars SG expressly objected to changing and specifying the threshold for Board action; the Registries SG and ISPCP Constituency did not object expressly but highlighted significant concerns about the implications of such a change. The Registries SG stated it was unlikely to support the 2/3 threshold for Board action unless three additional requirements (provision of a rationale, consistency with ICANN bylaws and within GAC scope, and defined consensus) applied to such GAC Advice. While BC and NPOC supported the change, both nevertheless also noted concerns over the implications, with the BC's support expressly conditioned upon certain qualifications being made to the proposal." Regards, Keith -----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 2:16 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es<mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>; jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>; thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Keith I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements? The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right? Best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>: Dear Jorge, Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations. The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it. If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute. Regards, Keith -----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es<mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>; jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>; thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Keith This is an interesting question. But what we have on the table is the third draft report. This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some gnso members (who have proposed this) best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>: We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object? Regards, Keith From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM To: James M. Bladel; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; Drazek, Keith Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-c<mailto:accountability-cross-c> ommunity@icann.org<mailto:ommunity@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either. Best Rafael Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos. -------- Original message -------- From: "James M. Bladel" Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00) To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-c<mailto:accountability-cross-c> ommunity@icann.org<mailto:ommunity@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Hello Jorge - Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC? Thanks- J. On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com%3cmailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__verisign.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=x-VQJVnOKEttRNXDaGtjg0qBUkOPFRCcWRuO7Pchyco&e=>>>>: The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days. Regards, Keith Sent from my iPhone On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com><mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>> wrote: Hi Paul, You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here. I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible. As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC. I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following: 1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP) I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it) Regards On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com><mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbr<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbr> an chc <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b><mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b%3E>>onsulting.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__onsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=5KHnoAhrAjr7fAxFcnt_UZe1YtILpdAqVarvKqTo3pE&e=><http://onsulting.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__onsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=5KHnoAhrAjr7fAxFcnt_UZe1YtILpdAqVarvKqTo3pE&e=>>>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com><mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbra<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbra> nc hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rose nz weig@redbranchco> nsulting.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=MWcLj9QiWa6FkG9XkRKeXbvFGGWMKuSdoJZOVx0uFBM&e=><http://nsulting.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=MWcLj9QiWa6FkG9XkRKeXbvFGGWMKuSdoJZOVx0uFBM&e=>>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660><tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650><tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739><tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:B<mailto:B> ec ky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:ky.Burr@neustar.biz>%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>>>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavall<mailto:olgacavall> i@ gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=>>>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>>> <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross<mailto:accountability-cross> -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross<mailto:accountability-cross> -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932><tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367><tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / +neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>> <http://www.neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=HrdlbmWrCO5JBFBy01CZkxzYffOEnj734nbsz6rmC3w&e=>> On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>> wrote: Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mai lt o:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=>%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=>> escribió: Kavouss, Becky responded to this yesterday: Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this. I expect she will follow up soon. Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP. I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday. If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it. Best, Brett On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: ka vouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:vouss.arasteh@gmail.com>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>><mailto :k avo <mailto:kavo%0b<mailto:kavo%250b>>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>>> wrote: Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>><mailto:%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>><mailto:%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged): == Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountabil<mailto:accountabil> it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr><mailto:a<mailto:a> cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann>. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org<mailto:es@icann.org>>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc<mailto:acc> ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cro<mailto:accountability-cro> ss -community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:greg<mailto:greg> sh atanipc@gmail.com<mailto:atanipc@gmail.com>%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>><mailto:gregsha<mailto:gregsha> t <mailto:gregshat%0b<mailto:gregshat%250b>>>>>anipc@gmail.com<mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.ed u% 3cmailto:milton@gatech.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gatech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=SPAXWQC6Dsx9-zWUlTgefSw18mVTdfNEVkBp5qftNNY&e=>>><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<ma <mailto:milton@gatech.edu%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton@gatech.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gatech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=SPAXWQC6Dsx9-zWUlTgefSw18mVTdfNEVkBp5qftNNY&e=><http://gat<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gat&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=WEOI2s3x2bkzEcuI6sDmynpBYdCfQu9Gx1c8Dm9xmCA&e=> ech.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=q57UP-BUi36awfkk9v0_QmW_zo-iqc1g58fkIrTD4OM&e=>>>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cros<mailto:accountability-cros> s- com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun ta bility-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability-cross-comm><mailto:accountab<mailto:accountab> il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3<mailto:accountability-cross-comm%253> cm ailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing I have a proposal for discussion. Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission. I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold. Just a thought - === Regards Jorge ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097<tel:202-608-6097> http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http -3 A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org-253chttps-3A_urldefense.proofpoint.com_v2_url-3Fu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=Gtc6E6VHfgb_i0XKDZwjHaHm1RkAHvgH4oUQoopUHXc&e=> =h ttp-3A__> heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq 8M o8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__-26gt-3B-26gt-3B.org-5F-26d-3Dcwigaq-26c-3Dmoptnlvtietedalc-5Flulrw-26r-3D62cjfoifzm&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=REtqw8XE73ZxbVu-e_HhGfX4ZGLz4PLhRG4i3BAn3uU&e=> 6X _GRlaq8Mo8T> jDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolh J2 mGN u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< ma ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>> ] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>><mailto:%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka<mailto:juka> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>><mailto:juka%0b%3E%3E%3E>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka<mailto:juka> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>><mailto:juka%0b%3E%3E%3E>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro<mailto:accountability-cro> ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com><m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro<mailto:accountability-cro> ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com><m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> ; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky<mailto:Becky>. Bu rr@neustar.biz<mailto:rr@neustar.biz>%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>>><mailto:Becky.Burr<mailto:Becky.Burr> <mailto:Becky.Burr%0b<mailto:Becky.Burr%250b>>>>>@neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><mailto:Becky<mailto:Becky> .Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Burr@neustar.biz>>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert<mailto:thomas@rickert> .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu<mailto:Mathieu>. Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Weill@afnic.fr>%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afnic.fr&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=Z8tDOMEnBfhmdWPrAzVwyG-OZ_TAZbVRCV4ezC9Uxyc&e=>>><mailto:Mathieu.We<mailto:Mathieu.We> <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b<mailto:Mathieu.We%250b>>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math<mailto:Math> ieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli<mailto:leonfeli> pe @sanchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>>><mailto:leonfelipe@s<mailto:leonfelipe@s> <mailto:leonfelipe@s<mailto:leonfelipe@s>%0b>>>>anchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=><http://anchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=>><mailto:leonfeli<mailto:leonfeli> pe@sanchez.mx<mailto:pe@sanchez.mx>>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin. ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider @b akom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__akom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=5m1Wu4_QF6gCTq1iMMVb_273bS7EFLGYD9CyaejWu-E&e=>>> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bak<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bak> om .ad <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bako m.ad<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__m.ad&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=8ZFX5vCcAFZmhESiMK7PID6EqBO7XzTYZKeiq-fOYrQ&s=RVgIuColcpz9CPw7S5EwY2Q0W1G_i0Xyp7XuxFjAxBI&e=>%0b>>>>min.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__min.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=jjfmbIWBm7Ffx6QzdROvG_rTO66AgO3JjqjFneu7scI&e=><http://min.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__min.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=jjfmbIWBm7Ffx6QzdROvG_rTO66AgO3JjqjFneu7scI&e=>>>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>><mailto:%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>><mailto:%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations. Regards Jorge Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< ma ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>> ] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>><mailto:%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka<mailto:juka> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>><mailto:juka%0b%3E%3E%3E>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka<mailto:juka> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>><mailto:juka%0b%3E%3E%3E>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro<mailto:accountability-cro> ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com><m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro<mailto:accountability-cro> ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com><m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>><mailto:%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>><mailto:%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote: Dear all I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday. A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it. This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant. Regards Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountabil<mailto:accountabil> it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr><mailto:a<mailto:a> cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann>. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org<mailto:es@icann.org>>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc<mailto:acc> ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cro<mailto:accountability-cro> ss -community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro<mailto:accountability-cro> ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com><m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion: ³ Burr Proposal: ? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23. The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.² However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call. Best regards, Finn and Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000<tel:%2B45%203529%201000> Direct: +45 35291308<tel:%2B45%2035291308> E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto :j ukacz@erst.dk<mailto:ukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukac<mailto:jukac> z@erst.dk<mailto:z@erst.dk><mailto:z@erst.dk>>> http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmB3s21IfuNbh13VrL_P3pm-s8gzWnm-3M6j6nI_348&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v 2/ url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk-253chttps-3A_urldefense.proofpoint&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=Ijs5G7Ftbj3C-WUg-8E5J-aeUiLlyHyrAA9dgrbn_kg&e=>. co m/v2/url> ?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__3A-5F-5Fwww.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=8ZFX5vCcAFZmhESiMK7PID6EqBO7XzTYZKeiq-fOYrQ&s=i4p0HP1Ju8U9GmbeQkrPINppAlr5ZluamPZjZX-WftI&e=><http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__3a-5F-5Fwww.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=WEbCbAM7VuGbzjgvfUiwjCbGrx9N0Rf_XbVUUhaPeeY&e=>>&d =C wIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioS UB 1PW w WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= > MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountabil<mailto:accountabil> it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr><mailto:a<mailto:a> cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann>. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org<mailto:es@icann.org>>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc<mailto:acc> ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cro<mailto:accountability-cro> ss -community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cros<mailto:accountability-cros> s- com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun ta bility-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability-cross-comm><mailto:accountab<mailto:accountab> il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3<mailto:accountability-cross-comm%253> cm ailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus! 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) * Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><http://www.neus<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neus&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=2PUd-2B5kmyJjzfZM90Pim0LySYCYfR8ID6S63UrXus&e=> ta r.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=ENjjcG0Hicj2PD0T3Zsbg22ppEoqQxmwliklHtZlPSI&e=><http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz-253e-253chttp-3A_www.neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=iTpR0rMW7n5cpCjw_ksnW_E7ByuJeJSZk243T0P7V7c&e=>>> From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: ka vouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:vouss.arasteh@gmail.com>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>><mailto :k avo <mailto:kavo%0b<mailto:kavo%250b>>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail>. com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro<mailto:accountability-cro> ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com><m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> , Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky<mailto:becky>. bu rr@neustar.biz<mailto:rr@neustar.biz>%3cmailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>>><mailto:becky.burr<mailto:becky.burr> <mailto:becky.burr%0b<mailto:becky.burr%250b>>>>>@neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><mailto:becky<mailto:becky> .burr@neustar.biz<mailto:burr@neustar.biz>>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu<mailto:Mathieu>. Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Weill@afnic.fr>%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afnic.fr&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=Z8tDOMEnBfhmdWPrAzVwyG-OZ_TAZbVRCV4ezC9Uxyc&e=>>><mailto:Mathieu.We<mailto:Mathieu.We> <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b<mailto:Mathieu.We%250b>>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math<mailto:Math> ieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert<mailto:thomas@rickert> .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli<mailto:leonfeli> pe @sanchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>>><mailto:leonfelipe@s<mailto:leonfelipe@s> <mailto:leonfelipe@s<mailto:leonfelipe@s>%0b>>>>anchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=><http://anchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=>><mailto:leonfeli<mailto:leonfeli> pe@sanchez.mx<mailto:pe@sanchez.mx>>>> Subject: <no subject> Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings, I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community. We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11 We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together. However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection. We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability. Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed . The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical 1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it. Package Deal 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) · Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; · Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and · Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cros<mailto:Accountability-Cros> s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm><mailto:Accountab<mailto:Accountab> il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%253> cm ailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e = <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ ma ilm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lm%0b>>>>a n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIE Te DAL C _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7- 2H ozb e OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X- wC 7M& e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cros<mailto:Accountability-Cros> s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm><mailto:Accountab<mailto:Accountab> il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%253> cm ailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e = _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cros<mailto:Accountability-Cros> s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e = _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross<mailto:Accountability-Cross> -C omm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Account ab ility-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma il man _ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD AL C_l U Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hoz be OZX Y oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e= _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-<mailto:Accountability-Cross-> Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-<mailto:Accountability-Cross-> Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-<mailto:Accountability-Cross-> Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-<mailto:Accountability-Cross-> Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-<mailto:Accountability-Cross-> Co mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-C<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C> ommunity@icann.org<mailto:ommunity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> <GNSO Council Response to CCWG-Accountability - FINAL - 22 January 2016.pdf> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=8ZFX5vCcAFZmhESiMK7PID6EqBO7XzTYZKeiq-fOYrQ&s=25EXHdeDvl9O8ZH9rjoVzlCV3S7G9Nz64JJMrvJi2oI&e=>
Dear Holly, Dear Rosemary Your situation is fully understandable, I also agreed wit James that 1. we should not rush 2.The full team is not abvailable at the ween-end 3. We will receive ,gowever, verbal clarification followed by Written Memo, once available.Without that written MEMO, IT MAY BE DIFFCULT TO BE CONVINCED . 4. Unlike few other distinguished colleagues, I am of strong view that a thorough analysis is required enabling each party to examine the formal / legal analysis and react accrodingly without emotion and withourt accusing any other party to either not understand or he orshe is wrong. That nobody is wrong as everyone interprets the case as per its understanding and obligations as well as its affiliation. We should think, and judge neutrally and impartially. Too much excitations and emotions were demonstrated from either party which does not help at all. I fully appreciate your kind efforts as I did yesterday Regards Kavouss 2016-02-07 16:53 GMT+01:00 Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com>:
Greatly appreciated, James and Kavouss. Both Rosemary and I are traveling this weekend. We will do our best for tomorrow's call but will need more time for a written response.
Holly
Sent with Good (www.good.com)
------------------------------ *From:* Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Sunday, February 07, 2016 08:37:21 AM *To:* James Gannon *Cc:* Gregory, Holly; ICANN@adlercolvin.com; Thomas Rickert; Accountability Cross Community; ACCT-Staff; Sidley ICANN CCWG *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issu
Dear James, Certainly I agree with you that we should not rush. However, you very rightly said *"Please allow our lawyers do prepare what they are able to do for the call and Im sure that formal written opinion will come when it is available.* *Also recognise that this is the weekend and full teams may not be available"* .That is a valid approach which was missing in Holly's mail and you did kindly pick it up for which I am grateful to you. Yr statement is very valid and logique Kavouss
2016-02-07 15:33 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>:
Legal analysis cannot be rushed or it is of no value to any of us. Please allow our lawyers do prepare what they are able to do for the call and Im sure that formal written opinion will come when it is available. Also recognise that this is the weekend and full teams may not be available.
-james
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: Sunday 7 February 2016 at 2:19 p.m. To: "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory@sidley.com> Cc: "ICANN@adlercolvin.com" <ICANN@adlercolvin.com>, Thomas Rickert < thomas@rickert.net>, Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, ACCT-Staff < acct-staff@icann.org>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issu
Dear Holly, Thank you very much. But the issue is too delicate, complex and sensitive. We do not accept only verbal explanation as said by you Quote *" we will try to be prepared to address on the call."* *Unquote* We need a memo describing t various aspects of the matter. Pls kindly parepare a MEMO i HEREBY REQUEST THE cO-Chair to urge our legal Council to prepare a formal MEMO. Failure to do so, considerable delay may be caused.to <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__caused.to&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...> the entire process. GAC MEMBERS WOULD CERTAINLY NOT HAPPY FOR ANY VERBAL EXPLANATION AND PERHAPS gnso too Regards Kavouss
2016-02-07 14:46 GMT+01:00 Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com>:
Hi Thomas, we will try to be prepared to address on the call. Holly
Sent with Good (www.good.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.good.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=...> )
------------------------------ *From:* Thomas Rickert *Sent:* Saturday, February 06, 2016 03:03:45 PM *To:* Rosemary E. Fei; Gregory, Holly; Sidley ICANN CCWG; ICANN@adlercolvin.com *Cc:* León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Mathieu Weill; ACCT-Staff; Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issu
Dear Rosemary and Holly, This is to certify the review of the questions in the e-mail below. We do know this is extremely short notice, but it would be great if the answers could inform our discussion on this very topic next Monday, February 8th, 12.00 UTC. We do appreciate that time is too short for a written memo, but maybe one of you or team could offer initial answers during the call.
I hope to be correct in assuming that you have seen the compromise proposal under consideration with input primarily from Kavouss and Becky. Also, you may find Rafael's previous questions and the answers offered by Becky informative. Should these not be known, please send a note to staff so they can forward them to you.
Thank you very much.
Kind regards, Thomas
--- rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail:
*Von:* "Perez Galindo, Rafael" <RPEREZGA@minetur.es> *Datum:* 6. Februar 2016 um 11:32:55 MEZ *An:* James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>, " Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, " kdrazek@verisign.com" <kdrazek@verisign.com> *Kopie:* "thomas@rickert.net" <thomas@rickert.net>, " accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Betreff:* *RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues*
Dear Co-chairs,
Det me draw your attention to the latest developments in the discussions regarding Rec 11 (former ST 18), namely the carve-out system put forward by Becky and backed by the GNSO.
While thanking Becky for this proposal, I believe we can all agree to acknowledge that the carve-out is not a mere adjustment, nor a tweak to complete or shape a package of measures, but it constitutes a major essential change, for it actually regulates the functioning of the EC with regards to the GAC, and could raise important political and legal concerns.
Hence, and prior to any possible endorsement, I kindly ask that a detailed legal analisys of the proposed text be commissioned to the Legal assistance by the Co-Chairs:
- who would decide whether the carve-out is applicable to a certain issue to be subject to a community decision
- according to what standard would that decision be taken? For instance: is it enough if Board mentions GAC Advice in its rationale as a source for its decision. Or would a substantial test be applied, i.e. checked whether the Board decision follows GAC Advice? In the latter case, would the carve-out also apply if the GAC Advice is only partially followed?
- what means of redress would be available for any party not in agreement with such a decision?
- would the GAC, according to this wording, be able to participate fully in the decision-making of the community mechanism on the following topics?:
1. Any Board decision on policies or implementation of delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs, which would be taken. having regard, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs)
2. Any Board decision on policy or implementation of new gTLDs, which would also take into consideration, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on new gTLDs)
Thank you and best regards
Rafael
________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of James Gannon [james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: 05 February 2016 21:15 To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; kdrazek@verisign.com Cc: thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Jorge, I think at this point the GAC needs to go back and consider the proposition that is on the table the the GNSO appears to be in a position to support.
We do not have the timelines available to us to continue to argue over this, the GNSO has come to rough support on a position now, I feel its time for the GAC to go back to its own processes with this proposition to evaluate it. We are all aware of the GACs wants in this, but that does not mean that the GNSO community will agree to them as we have laid out in our comments to the 3rd Draft proposal.
I feel that if we keep going around in circles over what the GNSO and GAC are potentially able to negotiate we will never end this process, and I think we all want to attempt to bring this to a close ASAP. I hope that the GAC can continue to show its flexibility and ability to compromise and work together with the broad community on this, no-one is setting out to disenfranchise any stakeholder group here, we are all trying to make this the least bad solution that we can all agree on. On this point no-one is winning and no-one is losing.
-James
On 05/02/2016, 8:03 p.m., " accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" < accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Keith
Thank you very much for this full text of the gnso input.
I'm aware if the concerns expressed by the gnso, and as I have said several times, I consider them legitimate and relevant, although we may have different opinions on their degree of impact or the means to address them.
At the same time we all know that the GAC came a long way to reach a consensus input on the then ST18, now rec11. And such difficulties were based on concerns from a relevant number of governments whose concerns I feel we should also consider legitimate and worth consideration.
Rec11 was then based on a compromise, which still raised concerns from sectors of the gnso and from a number of governments.
I think the solution is not to privilege parts of the community in reaching a solution.
We need to take on board as many stakeholders and constituencies as possible.
In the last weeks we agreed, we all agreed, to take up important points made by the gnso on rec11: clarify that the Board has no new obligations, the obligation of a clear rationale, the clarification that Board decisions always have to be consistent with Bylaws, irrespective of the source of the advice on which such a decision is based.
On rec10 we also made additions to address concerns expressed around the accountability review of the GAC.
And again on rec11 -as I also said- I felt that Becky's initial proposal (at least as some of us understood it) was one possible means. And I think that if we narrow it down to the community IRP it could work.
But to word it in such broad terms as it is now has the effect I have repeatedly described. Our lawyers could analyze the scooe of such an exception and advise us.
If we agree that the GAC is a legitimate participant in the community mechanism, as we habe repeatedly and consistently agreed, then we cannot favour an overbroad carve-out, because the GAC would not be able to participate on an equal footing in the community mechanism.
In such case we need to clarify and word the carve-out in such terms that it is clear that we just want a very narrow carve-out and that this will not prevent the GAC from normally participating in the community mechanism, with a few exceptions.
If the intention is to have a broad carve-out, then we would not be able to agree.
But I hope that we are in the first case.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Thanks Jorge,
A majority of the GNSO's constituent groups view the combination of Rec-1, Rec-10 and Rec-11 as "interlinked." The majority of GNSO groups (sufficient to reject) view ANY change of Board voting threshold for GAC consensus advice to be highly problematic. The GNSO's willingness to consider and accept Kavouss' suggested compromise of 60% is entirely dependent upon the further clarifications suggested by Becky in the Arasteh/Burr proposal.
I've attached the GNSO Council comments, which are a summary of the GNSO groups comments, for your further review. Here are the relevant texts:
From the GNSO Comments on Rec-1:
"Some in the GNSO have identified a clear link with Recommendations #10 & #11 and are of the view that the current balance between SO/ACs needs to be preserved in the Empowered Community, especially with respect to the GAC." [This means the status quo should be maintained -- the GAC should remain advisory and not have a decisional role.]
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-10:
"There are some concerns within the GNSO with the top down nature of accountability reviews, and the exemption of the GAC from this community requirement. It is also troubling that the GAC, further empowered if Recommendations #1 and #11 are adopted, would be exempted from the same periodic reviews as the other SO/ACs. All participants in the Community Mechanism should be subject to equivalent accountability reviews."
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-11:
"There is broad opposition to this recommendation as written. Most SG/Cs do not support the proposal to raise the threshold for a Board vote to reject GAC advice. All expressed serious concerns over the
lack of specificity in the recommendation in relation to the requirements for GAC advice (such as the provision of rationale) and the possibility that this recommendation, if adopted, could unduly change the nature of the Board-GAC relationship and/or the position of the GAC vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs also believe that any CCWG recommendation on this topic should retain the current flexibility in the Bylaws where the Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in order to reject GAC advice."
"IPC, NCSG and the Registrars SG expressly objected to changing and specifying the threshold for Board action; the Registries SG and ISPCP Constituency did not object expressly but highlighted significant concerns about the implications of such a change. The Registries SG stated it was unlikely to support the 2/3 threshold for Board action unless three additional requirements (provision of a rationale, consistency with ICANN bylaws and within GAC scope, and defined consensus) applied to such GAC Advice. While BC and NPOC supported the change, both nevertheless also noted concerns over the implications, with the BC's support expressly conditioned upon certain qualifications being made to the proposal."
Regards,
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>]
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 2:16 PM
To: Drazek, Keith
Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements?
The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right?
Best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Dear Jorge,
Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations.
The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it.
If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute.
Regards,
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>]
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM
To: Drazek, Keith
Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
and 11 issues
Dear Keith
This is an interesting question.
But what we have on the table is the third draft report.
This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a
higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the
consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some
gnso members (who have proposed this)
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com< mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <kdrazek@verisign.com>>>:
We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object?
Regards,
Keith
From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es <RPEREZGA@minetur.es>]
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM
To: James M. Bladel;
Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>;
Drazek, Keith
Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>>;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c
ommunity@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
and 11 issues
It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either.
Best
Rafael
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.
-------- Original message --------
From: "James M. Bladel"
Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00)
To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>,
kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <kdrazek@verisign.com>>
Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>>,
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c
ommunity@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
and 11 issues
Hello Jorge -
Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC?
Thanks-
J.
On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%20on%0bbehalf%20of% 20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>"
<accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%20on%20behalf%20of% 0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a
discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and
little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith
<kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <kdrazek@verisign.com> <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <kdrazek@verisign.com>%3cmailto:kdrazek@ <kdrazek@>verisign.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__verisign.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=...>
:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives
the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold
to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates
appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way
forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11.
Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards,
Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji
<seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com><mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@ <seun.ojedeji@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-).
While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting
right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the
community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and
that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same
level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some
extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain
situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not
give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making
power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto
GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of
the
following:
1. Rejected by board
2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by
an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission.
3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of
ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome
of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground
and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not
see
it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig"
<paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbr
an
chc
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>%3c mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b> <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b%3E>
onsulting.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__onsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c...> <http://onsulting.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__onsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=5KHnoAhrAjr7fAxFcnt_UZe1YtILpdAqVarvKqTo3pE&e=>>>> wrote:
Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is
the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a
real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbra
nc
hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>%3cmailto:paul.rose <paul.rose>
nz
weig@redbranchco>
nsulting.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=...> <http://nsulting.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=...>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>>
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message-----
From: Burr, Becky
[mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>< mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:B
ec ky.Burr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@ <Becky.Burr@>neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
]
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM
To: Olga Cavalli
<olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavall
i@ gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...> %3cmailto:olgacavalli@ <olgacavalli@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
;
Schaefer, Brett
<Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:
Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@ <Brett.Schaefer@> heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=...>
Cc:
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>< mailto:thomas@rickert.n <thomas@rickert.n>
et
%3cmailto:thomas@ <thomas@>rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>< mailto:thomas@rickert.n <thomas@rickert.n>
et
%3cmailto:thomas@ <thomas@>rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross
-c
omm
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross
-c
omm
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
and
11
issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been
that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an
exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note
Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further
restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy
General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932 <%2B1.202.533.2932>> Mobile:
+1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367 <%2B1.202.352.6367>> /
+neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...> <http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<http://www.neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ...>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli"
<olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <olgacavalli@gmail.com>%3cmailto:olgacavalli@ <olgacavalli@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>> wrote:
Brett
there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett
<Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mai
lt
o:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=...> %3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@ <Brett.Schaefer@>heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=...>
escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table
when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to
Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email
demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the
GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent,
but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of
Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve
this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have
arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:
ka
vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@ <kavouss.arasteh@> gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
<mailto
:k
avo
<mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com< mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>< mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com <uss.arasteh@gmail.com>%3c mailto:kavouss.arasteh@ <kavouss.arasteh@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie
As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have
serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in
the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and
send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current
text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED
TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion.
As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be
more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr
revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial
text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people.
Awaiting your action , I remain
Regards
Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <Jorge.Cancio@> bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&...>
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>> <%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a>
dmin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00q...> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3c mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom <Jorge.Cancio@bakom>
.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00...>
>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <Jorge.Cancio@> bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&...>
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>> <%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3c mailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to
(highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil
it
y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:
accountability-c>
ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a
cc
oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org <ross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabil <accountabil>
it
y-cr%3cmailto:accoun <accoun>>
tability-cr>
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.
or
g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org <oss-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:oss-community-bou <oss-community-bou>
nc
es@icann.org>>>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:acc
ou
nta
bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr <accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr>
os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky
Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05
An: Greg Shatan
<gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:greg
sh
atanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@ <gregshatanipc@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
<mailto:gregsha
t
<mailto:gregshat%0b>>>>anipc@gmail.com<mailto:anipc@gmail.com <anipc@gmail.com>><mailto:
gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller,
Milton L
<milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu <milton@gatech.edu>< mailto:milton@gatech.ed <milton@gatech.ed>
u% 3cmailto:milton@ <milton@>gatech.edu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gatech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od...>
<mailto:milton@gatech.edu <milton@gatech.edu><ma
<mailto:milton@gatech.edu <milton@gatech.edu>%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton@ gatech.edu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gatech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od...> <http://gat <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gat&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XT...>
ech.edu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00q...>
>
Cc:
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros
s-
com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accoun <accoun>
ta
bility-cross-com>
munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab
il
ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>%3e%3c mailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 <accountability-cross-comm%253>
cm
ailto:accountability>
-cross-comm>
unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>< mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold,
GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only
consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we
accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC
cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of
community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.
In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than
two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the
Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of
ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might
otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the
2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________
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
http://heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=...> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http
-3
A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org-253chttps-3...>
=h
ttp-3A__>
heritage
http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq
8M
o8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__-26gt-3B-26gt-3B.org-5F-...>
6X
_GRlaq8Mo8T>
jDmrxdYa
hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolh
J2
mGN
u
8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= >
Von: Kavouss Arasteh
[mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>< mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><
ma
ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...> %3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@ <kavouss.arasteh@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
]
Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <Jorge.Cancio@> bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&...>
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>> <%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a>
dmin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00q...> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3c mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom <Jorge.Cancio@bakom>
.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00...>
>
Cc:
<jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>< mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:
jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:juka
<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:juka%0b>>> <juka%0b%3E%3E%3E>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d <cz@erst.d>
k>>>>
<jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>< mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:
jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:juka
<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:juka%0b>>> <juka%0b%3E%3E%3E>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d <cz@erst.d>
k>>>>;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-co
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mmunity@icann.org>%3e%3c mailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability <accountability>>
-cross-com>
munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>< mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-co
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mmunity@icann.org>%3e%3c mailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability <accountability>>
-cross-com>
munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>< mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
;
Becky Burr
<Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.
Bu
rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@ <Becky.Burr@>neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<mailto:Becky.Burr
<mailto:Becky.Burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...> <http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<mailto:Becky
.Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert
.n et%3cmailto:thomas@ <thomas@>rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>
<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>%0b>>>>< mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>>>>;
Mathieu Weill
<Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.
Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@ <Mathieu.Weill@>afnic.fr <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afnic.fr&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00...>
<mailto:Mathieu.We
<mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr <ill@afnic.fr>
<mailto:Math
ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe
Sánchez Ambía
<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli
pe @sanchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od...> %3cmailto:leonfelipe@ <leonfelipe@>sanchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od...>
<mailto:leonfelipe@s
<mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...> <http://anchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
<mailto:leonfeli
pe@sanchez.mx>>>;
Schneider Thomas BAKOM
<Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin>.
ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider <Thomas.Schneider>
@b
akom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__akom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c...>
<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bak
om
.ad
<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bako <Thomas.Schneider@bako>
m.ad <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__m.ad&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2X...> %0b>>>>min.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__min.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP...> <http://min.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__min.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP...>
>
Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve
Recommendation
1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie,
Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member
requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial
Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page
deal" if includes your original text.
Regards
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <Jorge.Cancio@> bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&...>
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>> <%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a>
dmin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00q...> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3c mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom <Jorge.Cancio@bakom>
.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00...>
>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <Jorge.Cancio@> bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&...>
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>> <%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3c mailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of
community
IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many
concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh
[mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>< mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><
ma
ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...> %3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@ <kavouss.arasteh@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
]
Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <Jorge.Cancio@> bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&...>
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>> <%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a>
dmin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00q...> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3c mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom <Jorge.Cancio@bakom>
.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00...>
>
Cc:
<jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>< mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:
jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:juka
<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:juka%0b>>> <juka%0b%3E%3E%3E>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d <cz@erst.d>
k>>>>
<jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>< mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:
jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:juka
<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:juka%0b>>> <juka%0b%3E%3E%3E>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d <cz@erst.d>
k>>>>;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-co
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mmunity@icann.org>%3e%3c mailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability <accountability>>
-cross-com>
munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>< mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-co
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mmunity@icann.org>%3e%3c mailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability <accountability>>
-cross-com>
munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>< mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation
1 and 11 issues
Dear All,
Why Not taking initial Beckie,s
Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other
questions resulted from het revised text.
Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards
Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <Jorge.Cancio@> bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&...>
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>> <%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a>
dmin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00q...> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3c mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom <Jorge.Cancio@bakom>
.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00...>
>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <Jorge.Cancio@> bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&...>
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>> <%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3c mailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote:
Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which
probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions
we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any
community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad
and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community
decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was
directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil
it
y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:
accountability-c>
ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a
cc
oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org <ross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabil <accountabil>
it
y-cr%3cmailto:accoun <accoun>>
tability-cr>
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.
or
g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org <oss-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:oss-community-bou <oss-community-bou>
nc
es@icann.org>>>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:acc
ou
nta
bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr <accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr>
os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja
Wolman
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34
An: 'CCWG Accountability'
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-co
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mmunity@icann.org>%3e%3c mailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability <accountability>>
-cross-com>
munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>< mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation
1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in
order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the
proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by
Becky (email of 2
February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³
Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of
Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the
Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community
power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the
Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in
community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will
not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to
initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise
a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN
Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a
mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice
supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting
the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause
ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text
suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is
that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision
based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it
refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision
based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above)
should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus
Langelinie Allé 17
DK-2100 København Ø
Telephone: +45 3529 1000
Direct: +45 35291308
E-mail:
jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>>< mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto
:j
ukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukac
z@erst.dk<mailto:z@erst.dk <z@erst.dk>>>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk...> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v
2/
url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk...> .
co
m/v2/url>
?u=http-
3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__3A-5F-5Fwww.erhvervsstyr...> <http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__3a-5F-5Fwww.erhvervsstyr...>
&d
=C wIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif
zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioS
UB
1PW
w
WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil
it
y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:
accountability-c>
ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a
cc
oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org <ross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabil <accountabil>
it
y-cr%3cmailto:accoun <accoun>>
tability-cr>
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.
or
g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org <oss-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:oss-community-bou <oss-community-bou>
nc
es@icann.org>>>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:acc
ou
nta
bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr <accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr>
os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky
Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19
Til: Kavouss Arasteh;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros
s-
com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accoun <accoun>
ta
bility-cross-com>
munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab
il
ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>%3e%3c mailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 <accountability-cross-comm%253>
cm
ailto:accountability>
-cross-comm>
unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>< mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>>;
Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and
11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been
working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a
consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to
resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am
supportive of this package deal, as described below (the
description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I
appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table
and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the
Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community
power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free
to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity,
but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed
thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a
Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This
carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work
with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to
implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in
Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out
and add the following language to cover situations that would
otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where
the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the
community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in
support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in
support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of
GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority
requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the
standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8
February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above
as first final reading;
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above
as first final reading; and
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above
as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd
final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February,
noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach
consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on
Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 /
neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...> <http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...> <http://www.neus <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neus&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00...>
ta r.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2...> <http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz-253e-253chtt...>
From: Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:
ka
vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@ <kavouss.arasteh@> gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
<mailto
:k
avo
<mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.
com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com <uss.arasteh@gmail.com>%3c mailto:kavouss.arasteh@ <kavouss.arasteh@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM
To: Accountability Community
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-co
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mmunity@icann.org>%3e%3c mailto:accountabili <accountabili>
ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability <accountability>>
-cross-com>
munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>< mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
,
Becky Burr
<becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz <becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.
bu
rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:becky.burr@ <becky.burr@>neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<mailto:becky.burr
<mailto:becky.burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...> <http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<mailto:becky
.burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill
<Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.
Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@ <Mathieu.Weill@>afnic.fr <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afnic.fr&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00...>
<mailto:Mathieu.We
<mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr <ill@afnic.fr>
<mailto:Math
ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert
.n et%3cmailto:thomas@ <thomas@>rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>
<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>%0b>>>>< mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>>>>, León
Felipe Sánchez
Ambía
<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli
pe @sanchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od...> %3cmailto:leonfelipe@ <leonfelipe@>sanchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od...>
<mailto:leonfelipe@s
<mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...> <http://anchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...>
<mailto:leonfeli
pe@sanchez.mx>>>
Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you:
We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a
coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of
assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some
adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the
Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in
advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA
stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is
working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual
meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we
need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible
set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely
insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single
SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to
the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well
as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the
interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network
connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of
the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the
entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last
kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last
kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our
current position which is different from each other and not rule
out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession
towards each other position .We need to take every possible
initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a
participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should
really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be
accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/
decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by
Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3.
Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the
Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No
other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6.
Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be
held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is
a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the
CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are
of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that
my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming
change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard
procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the
compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb
and
8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb.
Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested
clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or
standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly
necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the
Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community
power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free
to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity,
but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed
thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a
Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This
carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work
with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to
implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in
Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out
and add the following language to cover situations that would
otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where
the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the
community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in
support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in
support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of
GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority
requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the
standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8
February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above
as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above
as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described
above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd
final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February,
noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach
consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on
Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros
s-
Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accoun <Accoun>
ta
bility-Cross-Com>
munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab
il
ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>%3e%3c mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 <Accountability-Cross-Comm%253>
cm
ailto:Accountability>
-Cross-Comm>
unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>< mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m
ai
lma
n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET
eD
ALC
_
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2
Ho
zbe
O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w
C7
M&e
=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_
ma
ilm
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai
lm%0b>>>>a
n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIE
Te
DAL
C
_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-
2H
ozb
e
OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-
wC
7M&
e
= >
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros
s-
Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accoun <Accoun>
ta
bility-Cross-Com>
munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab
il
ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>%3e%3c mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 <Accountability-Cross-Comm%253>
cm
ailto:Accountability>
-Cross-Comm>
unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>< mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m
ai
lma
n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET
eD
ALC
_
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2
Ho
zbe
O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w
C7
M&e
=
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros
s-
Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accoun <Accoun>
ta
bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org <munity@icann.org>>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m
ai
lma
n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET
eD
ALC
_
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2
Ho
zbe
O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w
C7
M&e
=
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross
-C
omm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Account <Account>
ab
ility-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma
il
man
_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD
AL
C_l
U
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hoz
be
OZX
Y
oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&
e=
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
Co
mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accounta <Accounta>
bi
lity-Cross-Commu>
nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org <nity@icann.org>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
Co
mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accounta <Accounta>
bi
lity-Cross-Commu>
nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org <nity@icann.org>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
Co
mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accounta <Accounta>
bi
lity-Cross-Commu>
nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org <nity@icann.org>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
Co
mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accounta <Accounta>
bi
lity-Cross-Commu>
nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org <nity@icann.org>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
Co
mmunity@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C
ommunity@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
<GNSO Council Response to CCWG-Accountability - FINAL - 22 January 2016.pdf>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
**************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
****************************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
Hello All, My apologies but I will be unable to make the call at Noon UTC today. I wish you well in your discussions. Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
On 8 Feb 2016, at 03:04 , Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
Dear Holly, Dear Rosemary Your situation is fully understandable, I also agreed wit James that 1. we should not rush 2.The full team is not abvailable at the ween-end 3. We will receive ,gowever, verbal clarification followed by Written Memo, once available.Without that written MEMO, IT MAY BE DIFFCULT TO BE CONVINCED . 4. Unlike few other distinguished colleagues, I am of strong view that a thorough analysis is required enabling each party to examine the formal / legal analysis and react accrodingly without emotion and withourt accusing any other party to either not understand or he orshe is wrong. That nobody is wrong as everyone interprets the case as per its understanding and obligations as well as its affiliation. We should think, and judge neutrally and impartially. Too much excitations and emotions were demonstrated from either party which does not help at all. I fully appreciate your kind efforts as I did yesterday Regards Kavouss
2016-02-07 16:53 GMT+01:00 Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>>: Greatly appreciated, James and Kavouss. Both Rosemary and I are traveling this weekend. We will do our best for tomorrow's call but will need more time for a written response.
Holly
Sent with Good (www.good.com <http://www.good.com/>)
From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2016 08:37:21 AM To: James Gannon Cc: Gregory, Holly; ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>; Thomas Rickert; Accountability Cross Community; ACCT-Staff; Sidley ICANN CCWG Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issu
Dear James, Certainly I agree with you that we should not rush. However, you very rightly said "Please allow our lawyers do prepare what they are able to do for the call and Im sure that formal written opinion will come when it is available. Also recognise that this is the weekend and full teams may not be available" .That is a valid approach which was missing in Holly's mail and you did kindly pick it up for which I am grateful to you. Yr statement is very valid and logique Kavouss
2016-02-07 15:33 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>: Legal analysis cannot be rushed or it is of no value to any of us. Please allow our lawyers do prepare what they are able to do for the call and Im sure that formal written opinion will come when it is available. Also recognise that this is the weekend and full teams may not be available.
-james
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Sunday 7 February 2016 at 2:19 p.m. To: "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>> Cc: "ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>" <ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issu
Dear Holly, Thank you very much. But the issue is too delicate, complex and sensitive. We do not accept only verbal explanation as said by you Quote " we will try to be prepared to address on the call." Unquote We need a memo describing t various aspects of the matter. Pls kindly parepare a MEMO i HEREBY REQUEST THE cO-Chair to urge our legal Council to prepare a formal MEMO. Failure to do so, considerable delay may be caused.to <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__caused.to&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...> the entire process. GAC MEMBERS WOULD CERTAINLY NOT HAPPY FOR ANY VERBAL EXPLANATION AND PERHAPS gnso too Regards Kavouss
2016-02-07 14:46 GMT+01:00 Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>>: Hi Thomas, we will try to be prepared to address on the call. Holly
Sent with Good (www.good.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.good.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=...>)
From: Thomas Rickert Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2016 03:03:45 PM To: Rosemary E. Fei; Gregory, Holly; Sidley ICANN CCWG; ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Mathieu Weill; ACCT-Staff; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issu
Dear Rosemary and Holly, This is to certify the review of the questions in the e-mail below. We do know this is extremely short notice, but it would be great if the answers could inform our discussion on this very topic next Monday, February 8th, 12.00 UTC. We do appreciate that time is too short for a written memo, but maybe one of you or team could offer initial answers during the call.
I hope to be correct in assuming that you have seen the compromise proposal under consideration with input primarily from Kavouss and Becky. Also, you may find Rafael's previous questions and the answers offered by Becky informative. Should these not be known, please send a note to staff so they can forward them to you.
Thank you very much.
Kind regards, Thomas
--- rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail:
Von: "Perez Galindo, Rafael" <RPEREZGA@minetur.es <mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>> Datum: 6. Februar 2016 um 11:32:55 MEZ An: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>, "kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>" <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Kopie: "thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>" <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>> Betreff: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-chairs,
Det me draw your attention to the latest developments in the discussions regarding Rec 11 (former ST 18), namely the carve-out system put forward by Becky and backed by the GNSO.
While thanking Becky for this proposal, I believe we can all agree to acknowledge that the carve-out is not a mere adjustment, nor a tweak to complete or shape a package of measures, but it constitutes a major essential change, for it actually regulates the functioning of the EC with regards to the GAC, and could raise important political and legal concerns.
Hence, and prior to any possible endorsement, I kindly ask that a detailed legal analisys of the proposed text be commissioned to the Legal assistance by the Co-Chairs:
- who would decide whether the carve-out is applicable to a certain issue to be subject to a community decision
- according to what standard would that decision be taken? For instance: is it enough if Board mentions GAC Advice in its rationale as a source for its decision. Or would a substantial test be applied, i.e. checked whether the Board decision follows GAC Advice? In the latter case, would the carve-out also apply if the GAC Advice is only partially followed?
- what means of redress would be available for any party not in agreement with such a decision?
- would the GAC, according to this wording, be able to participate fully in the decision-making of the community mechanism on the following topics?:
1. Any Board decision on policies or implementation of delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs, which would be taken. having regard, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs)
2. Any Board decision on policy or implementation of new gTLDs, which would also take into consideration, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on new gTLDs)
Thank you and best regards
Rafael
________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] on behalf of James Gannon [james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>] Sent: 05 February 2016 21:15 To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Jorge, I think at this point the GAC needs to go back and consider the proposition that is on the table the the GNSO appears to be in a position to support.
We do not have the timelines available to us to continue to argue over this, the GNSO has come to rough support on a position now, I feel its time for the GAC to go back to its own processes with this proposition to evaluate it. We are all aware of the GACs wants in this, but that does not mean that the GNSO community will agree to them as we have laid out in our comments to the 3rd Draft proposal.
I feel that if we keep going around in circles over what the GNSO and GAC are potentially able to negotiate we will never end this process, and I think we all want to attempt to bring this to a close ASAP. I hope that the GAC can continue to show its flexibility and ability to compromise and work together with the broad community on this, no-one is setting out to disenfranchise any stakeholder group here, we are all trying to make this the least bad solution that we can all agree on. On this point no-one is winning and no-one is losing.
-James
On 05/02/2016, 8:03 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear Keith
Thank you very much for this full text of the gnso input.
I'm aware if the concerns expressed by the gnso, and as I have said several times, I consider them legitimate and relevant, although we may have different opinions on their degree of impact or the means to address them.
At the same time we all know that the GAC came a long way to reach a consensus input on the then ST18, now rec11. And such difficulties were based on concerns from a relevant number of governments whose concerns I feel we should also consider legitimate and worth consideration.
Rec11 was then based on a compromise, which still raised concerns from sectors of the gnso and from a number of governments.
I think the solution is not to privilege parts of the community in reaching a solution.
We need to take on board as many stakeholders and constituencies as possible.
In the last weeks we agreed, we all agreed, to take up important points made by the gnso on rec11: clarify that the Board has no new obligations, the obligation of a clear rationale, the clarification that Board decisions always have to be consistent with Bylaws, irrespective of the source of the advice on which such a decision is based.
On rec10 we also made additions to address concerns expressed around the accountability review of the GAC.
And again on rec11 -as I also said- I felt that Becky's initial proposal (at least as some of us understood it) was one possible means. And I think that if we narrow it down to the community IRP it could work.
But to word it in such broad terms as it is now has the effect I have repeatedly described. Our lawyers could analyze the scooe of such an exception and advise us.
If we agree that the GAC is a legitimate participant in the community mechanism, as we habe repeatedly and consistently agreed, then we cannot favour an overbroad carve-out, because the GAC would not be able to participate on an equal footing in the community mechanism.
In such case we need to clarify and word the carve-out in such terms that it is clear that we just want a very narrow carve-out and that this will not prevent the GAC from normally participating in the community mechanism, with a few exceptions.
If the intention is to have a broad carve-out, then we would not be able to agree.
But I hope that we are in the first case.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
Thanks Jorge,
A majority of the GNSO's constituent groups view the combination of Rec-1, Rec-10 and Rec-11 as "interlinked." The majority of GNSO groups (sufficient to reject) view ANY change of Board voting threshold for GAC consensus advice to be highly problematic. The GNSO's willingness to consider and accept Kavouss' suggested compromise of 60% is entirely dependent upon the further clarifications suggested by Becky in the Arasteh/Burr proposal.
I've attached the GNSO Council comments, which are a summary of the GNSO groups comments, for your further review. Here are the relevant texts:
From the GNSO Comments on Rec-1:
"Some in the GNSO have identified a clear link with Recommendations #10 & #11 and are of the view that the current balance between SO/ACs needs to be preserved in the Empowered Community, especially with respect to the GAC." [This means the status quo should be maintained -- the GAC should remain advisory and not have a decisional role.]
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-10:
"There are some concerns within the GNSO with the top down nature of accountability reviews, and the exemption of the GAC from this community requirement. It is also troubling that the GAC, further empowered if Recommendations #1 and #11 are adopted, would be exempted from the same periodic reviews as the other SO/ACs. All participants in the Community Mechanism should be subject to equivalent accountability reviews."
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-11:
"There is broad opposition to this recommendation as written. Most SG/Cs do not support the proposal to raise the threshold for a Board vote to reject GAC advice. All expressed serious concerns over the lack of specificity in the recommendation in relation to the requirements for GAC advice (such as the provision of rationale) and the possibility that this recommendation, if adopted, could unduly change the nature of the Board-GAC relationship and/or the position of the GAC vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs also believe that any CCWG recommendation on this topic should retain the current flexibility in the Bylaws where the Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in order to reject GAC advice."
"IPC, NCSG and the Registrars SG expressly objected to changing and specifying the threshold for Board action; the Registries SG and ISPCP Constituency did not object expressly but highlighted significant concerns about the implications of such a change. The Registries SG stated it was unlikely to support the 2/3 threshold for Board action unless three additional requirements (provision of a rationale, consistency with ICANN bylaws and within GAC scope, and defined consensus) applied to such GAC Advice. While BC and NPOC supported the change, both nevertheless also noted concerns over the implications, with the BC's support expressly conditioned upon certain qualifications being made to the proposal."
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 2:16 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es <mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>; jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>; thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements?
The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right?
Best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
Dear Jorge,
Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations.
The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it.
If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute.
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es <mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>; jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>; thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
This is an interesting question.
But what we have on the table is the third draft report.
This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some gnso members (who have proposed this)
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>>:
We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object?
Regards, Keith
From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es <mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM To: James M. Bladel; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>; Drazek, Keith Cc: thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-c <mailto:accountability-cross-c> ommunity@icann.org <mailto:ommunity@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either.
Best Rafael
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.
-------- Original message -------- From: "James M. Bladel" Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00) To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>, kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Cc: thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-c <mailto:accountability-cross-c> ommunity@icann.org <mailto:ommunity@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Hello Jorge -
Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC?
Thanks-
J.
On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%20on%20behalf%20of%0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>%3cmailto:kdrazek@ <mailto:kdrazek@>verisign.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__verisign.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=x-VQJVnOKEttRNXDaGtjg0qBUkOPFRCcWRuO7Pchyco&e=>>>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com><mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com><mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@ <mailto:seun.ojedeji@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com><mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbr <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbr> an chc <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>%3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b%3E>>onsulting.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__onsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=5KHnoAhrAjr7fAxFcnt_UZe1YtILpdAqVarvKqTo3pE&e=><http://onsulting.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__onsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=5KHnoAhrAjr7fAxFcnt_UZe1YtILpdAqVarvKqTo3pE&e=>>>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com><mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbra <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbra> nc hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>%3cmailto:paul.rose <mailto:paul.rose> nz weig@redbranchco> nsulting.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=MWcLj9QiWa6FkG9XkRKeXbvFGGWMKuSdoJZOVx0uFBM&e=><http://nsulting.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=MWcLj9QiWa6FkG9XkRKeXbvFGGWMKuSdoJZOVx0uFBM&e=>>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660><tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650><tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739><tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:B <mailto:B> ec ky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:ky.Burr@neustar.biz>%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@ <mailto:Becky.Burr@>neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>>>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavall <mailto:olgacavall> i@ gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>%3cmailto:olgacavalli@ <mailto:olgacavalli@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@ <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@>heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=>>>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.n <mailto:thomas@rickert.n> et %3cmailto:thomas@ <mailto:thomas@>rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>>> <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.n <mailto:thomas@rickert.n> et %3cmailto:thomas@ <mailto:thomas@>rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross <mailto:accountability-cross> -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org>>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross <mailto:accountability-cross> -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org>>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 <tel:%2B1.202.533.2932><tel:%2B1.202.533.2932 <tel:%2B1.202.533.2932>> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367><tel:%2B1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>> / +neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>> <http://www.neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=HrdlbmWrCO5JBFBy01CZkxzYffOEnj734nbsz6rmC3w&e=>>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>%3cmailto:olgacavalli@ <mailto:olgacavalli@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>> wrote:
> Brett > there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga > >> El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett >> <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mai >> lt >> o:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=>%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@ <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@>heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=>> >> escribió: >> >> Kavouss, >> >> Becky responded to this yesterday: >> >> Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table >> when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to >> Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email >> demonstrating this. >> >> I expect she will follow up soon. >> >> Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the >> GAC carve out to IRP. >> >> I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, >> but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of >> Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday. >> >> If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve >> this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have >> arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it. >> >> Best, >> >> Brett >> >> >> >> On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh >> <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto: >> ka >> vouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:vouss.arasteh@gmail.com>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@ <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>><mailto >> :k >> avo <mailto:kavo%0b <mailto:kavo%250b>>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@ <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>>> wrote: >> >> Dear Beckie >> As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have >> serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in >> the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and >> send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current >> text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED >> TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. >> As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be >> more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr >> revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial >> text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. >> Awaiting your action , I remain >> Regards >> Kavousd >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, >> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>> <mailto:%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a> dmin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom> .admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> >> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>> <mailto:%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote: >> >> Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky >> >> This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to >> (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged): >> >> == >> >> Von: >> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountabil <mailto:accountabil> >> it >> y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto: >> accountability-c> >> ross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr <mailto:accountability-cr><mailto:a <mailto:a> >> cc >> oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabil <mailto:accountabil> >> it >> y-cr%3cmailto:accoun <mailto:accoun>> >> tability-cr> >> oss-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann>. >> or >> g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:oss-community-bou <mailto:oss-community-bou> >> nc >> es@icann.org <mailto:es@icann.org>>>> >> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:acc <mailto:acc> >> ou >> nta >> bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cro <mailto:accountability-cro> >> ss >> -community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr <mailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr> >> os s-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:s-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky >> Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 >> An: Greg Shatan >> <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:greg <mailto:greg> >> sh >> atanipc@gmail.com <mailto:atanipc@gmail.com>%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@ <mailto:gregshatanipc@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>><mailto:gregsha <mailto:gregsha> >> t <mailto:gregshat%0b <mailto:gregshat%250b>>>>>anipc@gmail.com <mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto:anipc@gmail.com <mailto:anipc@gmail.com>><mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>; Mueller, >> Milton L >> <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.ed <mailto:milton@gatech.ed> >> u% 3cmailto:milton@ <mailto:milton@>gatech.edu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gatech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=SPAXWQC6Dsx9-zWUlTgefSw18mVTdfNEVkBp5qftNNY&e=>>><mailto:milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu><ma <mailto:milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton@gatech.edu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gatech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=SPAXWQC6Dsx9-zWUlTgefSw18mVTdfNEVkBp5qftNNY&e=><http://gat <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gat&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XT...> ech.edu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=q57UP-BUi36awfkk9v0_QmW_zo-iqc1g58fkIrTD4OM&e=>>>>> >> Cc: >> accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cros <mailto:accountability-cros> >> s- >> com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accoun <mailto:accoun> >> ta >> bility-cross-com> >> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-comm <mailto:accountability-cross-comm><mailto:accountab <mailto:accountab> >> il >> ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 <mailto:accountability-cross-comm%253> >> cm >> ailto:accountability> >> -cross-comm> >> unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org>><mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org>>> >> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, >> GAC consensus, and finishing >> >> I have a proposal for discussion. >> >> Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only >> consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we >> accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC >> cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of >> community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. >> In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than >> two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the >> Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of >> ICANN¹s Mission. >> >> I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might >> otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the >> 2/3rds rejection threshold. >> >> Just a thought - >> >> === >> >> Regards >> >> Jorge >> >> >> ________________________________ >> Brett Schaefer >> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory >> Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for >> National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation >> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE >> Washington, DC 20002 >> 202-608-6097 <tel:202-608-6097> >> >> http://heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http> >> -3 >> A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org-253chttps-3...> >> =h >> ttp-3A__> >> heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq <> 8M o8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__-26gt-3B-26gt-3B.org-5F-...> 6X _GRlaq8Mo8T> jDmrxdYa >> hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolh >> J2 >> mGN >> u >> 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > >> Von: Kavouss Arasteh >> [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>< >> ma >> ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@ <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>> >> ] >> Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 >> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM >> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>> <mailto:%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a> dmin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom> .admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> >> Cc: >> <jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto: >> jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:juka <mailto:juka> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:juka%0b>>> <mailto:juka%0b%3E%3E%3E>>cz@erst.dk <mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d <mailto:cz@erst.d> k>>>> >> <jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto: >> jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:juka <mailto:juka> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:juka%0b>>> <mailto:juka%0b%3E%3E%3E>>cz@erst.dk <mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d <mailto:cz@erst.d> k>>>>; >> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro <mailto:accountability-cro> >> ss >> -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com <mailto:accountability-cross-com><m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability <mailto:accountability>> >> -cross-com> >> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>>> >> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro <mailto:accountability-cro> >> ss >> -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com <mailto:accountability-cross-com><m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability <mailto:accountability>> >> -cross-com> >> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>>> >>> ; >> Becky Burr >> <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky <mailto:Becky>. >> Bu >> rr@neustar.biz <mailto:rr@neustar.biz>%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@ <mailto:Becky.Burr@>neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>>><mailto:Becky.Burr <mailto:Becky.Burr> <mailto:Becky.Burr%0b <mailto:Becky.Burr%250b>>>>>@neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><mailto:Becky <mailto:Becky> .Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Burr@neustar.biz>>>>; Thomas Rickert >> <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert <mailto:thomas@rickert> >> .n et%3cmailto:thomas@ <mailto:thomas@>rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>>; Mathieu Weill >> <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu <mailto:Mathieu>. >> Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Weill@afnic.fr>%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@ <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@>afnic.fr <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afnic.fr&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=Z8tDOMEnBfhmdWPrAzVwyG-OZ_TAZbVRCV4ezC9Uxyc&e=>>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We> <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b <mailto:Mathieu.We%250b>>>>>ill@afnic.fr <mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:ill@afnic.fr <mailto:ill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Math <mailto:Math> ieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>>; León Felipe >> Sánchez Ambía >> <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli <mailto:leonfeli> >> pe @sanchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>%3cmailto:leonfelipe@ <mailto:leonfelipe@>sanchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s> <mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s>%0b>>>>anchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=><http://anchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=>><mailto:leonfeli <mailto:leonfeli> pe@sanchez.mx <mailto:pe@sanchez.mx>>>>; >> Schneider Thomas BAKOM >> <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin>. >> ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider <mailto:Thomas.Schneider> >> @b >> akom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__akom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=5m1Wu4_QF6gCTq1iMMVb_273bS7EFLGYD9CyaejWu-E&e=>>> >> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bak <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bak> >> om >> .ad <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bako <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bako> m.ad <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__m.ad&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=8ZFX5vCcAFZmhESiMK7PID6EqBO7XzTYZKeiq-fOYrQ&s=RVgIuColcpz9CPw7S5EwY2Q0W1G_i0Xyp7XuxFjAxBI&e=>%0b>>>>min.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__min.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=jjfmbIWBm7Ffx6QzdROvG_rTO66AgO3JjqjFneu7scI&e=><http://min.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__min.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=jjfmbIWBm7Ffx6QzdROvG_rTO66AgO3JjqjFneu7scI&e=>>>>> >> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve >> Recommendation >> 1 and 11 issues >> >> Dear Beckie, >> Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member >> requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial >> Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page >> deal" if includes your original text. >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, >> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>> <mailto:%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a> dmin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom> .admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> >> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>> <mailto:%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote: >> Dear Kavouss >> >> In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of >> community >> IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many >> concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations. >> >> Regards >> >> Jorge >> >> Von: Kavouss Arasteh >> [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>< >> ma >> ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@ <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>> >> ] >> Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 >> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM >> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>> <mailto:%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a> dmin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom> .admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> >> Cc: >> <jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto: >> jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:juka <mailto:juka> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:juka%0b>>> <mailto:juka%0b%3E%3E%3E>>cz@erst.dk <mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d <mailto:cz@erst.d> k>>>> >> <jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto: >> jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:juka <mailto:juka> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:juka%0b>>> <mailto:juka%0b%3E%3E%3E>>cz@erst.dk <mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d <mailto:cz@erst.d> k>>>>; >> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro <mailto:accountability-cro> >> ss >> -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com <mailto:accountability-cross-com><m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability <mailto:accountability>> >> -cross-com> >> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>>> >> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro <mailto:accountability-cro> >> ss >> -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com <mailto:accountability-cross-com><m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability <mailto:accountability>> >> -cross-com> >> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>>> >> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation >> 1 and 11 issues >> >> Dear All, >> Why Not taking initial Beckie,s >> Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other >> questions resulted from het revised text. >> Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards >> Kavousd >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, >> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>> <mailto:%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a> dmin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom> .admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> >> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>> <mailto:%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote: >> Dear all >> >> I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which >> probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions >> we were having yesterday. >> >> A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any >> community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad >> and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community >> decisions which are relevant to it. >> >> This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was >> directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant. >> >> Regards >> >> Jorge >> >> Von: >> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountabil <mailto:accountabil> >> it >> y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto: >> accountability-c> >> ross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr <mailto:accountability-cr><mailto:a <mailto:a> >> cc >> oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabil <mailto:accountabil> >> it >> y-cr%3cmailto:accoun <mailto:accoun>> >> tability-cr> >> oss-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann>. >> or >> g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:oss-community-bou <mailto:oss-community-bou> >> nc >> es@icann.org <mailto:es@icann.org>>>> >> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:acc <mailto:acc> >> ou >> nta >> bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cro <mailto:accountability-cro> >> ss >> -community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr <mailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr> >> os s-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:s-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja >> Wolman >> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 >> An: 'CCWG Accountability' >> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro <mailto:accountability-cro> >> ss >> -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com <mailto:accountability-cross-com><m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability <mailto:accountability>> >> -cross-com> >> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>>> >> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation >> 1 and 11 issues >> >> Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all >> >> Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in >> order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the >> proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by >> Becky (email of 2 >> February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion: >> >> ³ >> Burr Proposal: >> >> >> ? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of >> Paragraph 23. >> >> >> >> The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the >> Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community >> power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s >> implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the >> Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in >> community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will >> not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to >> initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise >> a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN >> Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a >> mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice >> supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting >> the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause >> ICANN to violate its Bylaws.² >> >> However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text >> suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is >> that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision >> based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it >> refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision >> based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) >> should be the text to be considered at today¹s call. >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Finn and Julia >> >> >> >> Julia Katja Wolman >> >> DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY >> >> Dahlerups Pakhus >> Langelinie Allé 17 >> DK-2100 København Ø >> Telephone: +45 3529 1000 <tel:%2B45%203529%201000> >> Direct: +45 35291308 <tel:%2B45%2035291308> >> E-mail: >> jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto >> :j >> ukacz@erst.dk <mailto:ukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukac <mailto:jukac> >> z@erst.dk <mailto:z@erst.dk><mailto:z@erst.dk <mailto:z@erst.dk>>>> >> >> http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmB3s21IfuNbh13VrL_P3pm-s8gzWnm-3M6j6nI_348&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v> >> 2/ >> url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk...>. >> co >> m/v2/url> >> ?u=http- >> 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__3A-5F-5Fwww.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=8ZFX5vCcAFZmhESiMK7PID6EqBO7XzTYZKeiq-fOYrQ&s=i4p0HP1Ju8U9GmbeQkrPINppAlr5ZluamPZjZX-WftI&e=><http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__3a-5F-5Fwww.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=WEbCbAM7VuGbzjgvfUiwjCbGrx9N0Rf_XbVUUhaPeeY&e=>>&d >> =C wIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif >> zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioS >> UB >> 1PW >> w >> WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= > >> >> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH >> >> P Please consider the environment before printing this email. >> >> >> >> >> >> Fra: >> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountabil <mailto:accountabil> >> it >> y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto: >> accountability-c> >> ross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr <mailto:accountability-cr><mailto:a <mailto:a> >> cc >> oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabil <mailto:accountabil> >> it >> y-cr%3cmailto:accoun <mailto:accoun>> >> tability-cr> >> oss-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann>. >> or >> g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:oss-community-bou <mailto:oss-community-bou> >> nc >> es@icann.org <mailto:es@icann.org>>>> >> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:acc <mailto:acc> >> ou >> nta >> bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cro <mailto:accountability-cro> >> ss >> -community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr <mailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr> >> os s-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:s-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky >> Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 >> Til: Kavouss Arasteh; >> accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cros <mailto:accountability-cros> >> s- >> com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accoun <mailto:accoun> >> ta >> bility-cross-com> >> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-comm <mailto:accountability-cross-comm><mailto:accountab <mailto:accountab> >> il >> ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 <mailto:accountability-cross-comm%253> >> cm >> ailto:accountability> >> -cross-comm> >> unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org>><mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org>>>; >> Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía >> Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and >> 11 issues >> >> Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been >> working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a >> consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to >> resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am >> supportive of this package deal, as described below (the >> description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I >> appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table >> and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus! >> >> >> 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 >> · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: >> >> The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the >> Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community >> power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s >> implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free >> to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, >> but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed >> thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a >> Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This >> carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work >> with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to >> implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in >> Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. >> · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out >> and add the following language to cover situations that would >> otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: >> >> The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where >> the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the >> community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s >> implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in >> support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in >> support and no more than one objects. >> 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of >> GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority >> requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the >> standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. >> 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 >> February) >> >> * Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above >> as first final reading; >> * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above >> as first final reading; and >> * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above >> as first final reading. >> 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd >> final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, >> noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach >> consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on >> Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). >> >> >> >> J. Beckwith Burr >> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer >> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 >> Office: +1.202.533.2932 <tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / >> neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><http://www.neus <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neus&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00...> >> ta r.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=ENjjcG0Hicj2PD0T3Zsbg22ppEoqQxmwliklHtZlPSI&e=><http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz-253e-253chttp-3A_www.neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=iTpR0rMW7n5cpCjw_ksnW_E7ByuJeJSZk243T0P7V7c&e=>>> >> >> From: Kavouss Arasteh >> <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto: >> ka >> vouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:vouss.arasteh@gmail.com>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@ <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>><mailto >> :k >> avo <mailto:kavo%0b <mailto:kavo%250b>>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail>. com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@ <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>>
>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM >> To: Accountability Community >> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro <mailto:accountability-cro> >> ss >> -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com <mailto:accountability-cross-com><m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability <mailto:accountability>> >> -cross-com> >> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>>> >>> , >> Becky Burr >> <becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky <mailto:becky>. >> bu >> rr@neustar.biz <mailto:rr@neustar.biz>%3cmailto:becky.burr@ <mailto:becky.burr@>neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>>><mailto:becky.burr <mailto:becky.burr> <mailto:becky.burr%0b <mailto:becky.burr%250b>>>>>@neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><mailto:becky <mailto:becky> .burr@neustar.biz <mailto:burr@neustar.biz>>>>, Mathieu Weill >> <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu <mailto:Mathieu>. >> Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Weill@afnic.fr>%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@ <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@>afnic.fr <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afnic.fr&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=Z8tDOMEnBfhmdWPrAzVwyG-OZ_TAZbVRCV4ezC9Uxyc&e=>>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We> <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b <mailto:Mathieu.We%250b>>>>>ill@afnic.fr <mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:ill@afnic.fr <mailto:ill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Math <mailto:Math> ieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>>, Thomas Rickert >> <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert <mailto:thomas@rickert> >> .n et%3cmailto:thomas@ <mailto:thomas@>rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>>, León Felipe Sánchez >> Ambía >> <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli <mailto:leonfeli> >> pe @sanchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>%3cmailto:leonfelipe@ <mailto:leonfelipe@>sanchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s> <mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s>%0b>>>>anchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=><http://anchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=>><mailto:leonfeli <mailto:leonfeli> pe@sanchez.mx <mailto:pe@sanchez.mx>>>> >> Subject: <no subject> >> >> >> Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues >> >> First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: >> We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a >> coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of >> assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some >> adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the >> Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in >> advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA >> stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is >> working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual >> meetings, >> >> I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we >> need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible >> set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely >> insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single >> SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to >> the extent practiceable and possible the entire community. >> >> We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well >> as those of Recommendation 11 >> >> We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the >> interested parties together. >> >> However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network >> connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of >> the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the >> entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection. >> >> We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last >> kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last >> kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area >> >> We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our >> current position which is different from each other and not rule >> out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession >> towards each other position .We need to take every possible >> initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability. >> >> Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a >> participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should >> really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently >> >> To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be >> accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ >> decomposed . >> >> The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical >> >> 1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by >> Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. >> Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the >> Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No >> other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. >> Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be >> held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is >> a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the >> CCWG to take it as it is >> >> I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are >> of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that >> my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming >> change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard >> procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the >> compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb >> and >> 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. >> Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested >> clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or >> standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly >> necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it. >> >> Package Deal >> >> 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 >> >> >> >> · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: >> >> >> >> The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the >> Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community >> power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s >> implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free >> to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, >> but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed >> thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a >> Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This >> carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work >> with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to >> implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in >> Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. >> >> >> >> · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out >> and add the following language to cover situations that would >> otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: >> >> >> >> The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where >> the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the >> community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s >> implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in >> support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in >> support and no more than one objects. >> >> >> >> 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of >> GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority >> requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the >> standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. >> >> >> >> 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 >> February) >> >> >> >> · Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above >> as first final reading; >> >> · Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above >> as first final reading; and >> >> · Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described >> above as first final reading. >> >> >> >> 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd >> final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, >> noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach >> consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on >> Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). >> >> Kavouss >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> >> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cros <mailto:Accountability-Cros> >> s- >> Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accoun <mailto:Accoun> >> ta >> bility-Cross-Com> >> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm><mailto:Accountab <mailto:Accountab> >> il >> ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%253> >> cm >> ailto:Accountability> >> -Cross-Comm> >> unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org>><mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org>>> >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m> >> ai >> lma >> n >> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET >> eD >> ALC >> _ >> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 >> Ho >> zbe >> O >> ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w >> C7 >> M&e >> = >> >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_> >> ma >> ilm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai> lm%0b>>>>a >> n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIE >> Te >> DAL >> C >> _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7- >> 2H >> ozb >> e >> OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X- >> wC >> 7M& >> e >> = > >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> >> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cros <mailto:Accountability-Cros> >> s- >> Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accoun <mailto:Accoun> >> ta >> bility-Cross-Com> >> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm><mailto:Accountab <mailto:Accountab> >> il >> ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%253> >> cm >> ailto:Accountability> >> -Cross-Comm> >> unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org>><mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org>>> >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m> >> ai >> lma >> n >> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET >> eD >> ALC >> _ >> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 >> Ho >> zbe >> O >> ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w >> C7 >> M&e >> = >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> >> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cros <mailto:Accountability-Cros> >> s- >> Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accoun <mailto:Accoun> >> ta >> bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>>> >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m> >> ai >> lma >> n >> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET >> eD >> ALC >> _ >> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 >> Ho >> zbe >> O >> ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w >> C7 >> M&e >> = > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross <mailto:Accountability-Cross> > -C > omm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Account <mailto:Account> > ab > ility-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org>>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma> > il > man > _ > listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD > AL > C_l > U > Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hoz > be > OZX > Y > oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& > e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross- <mailto:Accountability-Cross-> Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accounta <mailto:Accounta> bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross- <mailto:Accountability-Cross-> Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accounta <mailto:Accounta> bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross- <mailto:Accountability-Cross-> Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accounta <mailto:Accounta> bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross- <mailto:Accountability-Cross-> Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accounta <mailto:Accounta> bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross- <mailto:Accountability-Cross-> Co mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-C <mailto:Accountability-Cross-C> ommunity@icann.org <mailto:ommunity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> <GNSO Council Response to CCWG-Accountability - FINAL - 22 January 2016.pdf>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
**************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
****************************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello All, My apologies but I will be unable to make the call at Noon UTC today. I wish you well in your discussions. Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
On 8 Feb 2016, at 03:04 , Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@GMAIL.COM <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Holly, Dear Rosemary Your situation is fully understandable, I also agreed wit James that 1. we should not rush 2.The full team is not abvailable at the ween-end 3. We will receive ,gowever, verbal clarification followed by Written Memo, once available.Without that written MEMO, IT MAY BE DIFFCULT TO BE CONVINCED . 4. Unlike few other distinguished colleagues, I am of strong view that a thorough analysis is required enabling each party to examine the formal / legal analysis and react accrodingly without emotion and withourt accusing any other party to either not understand or he orshe is wrong. That nobody is wrong as everyone interprets the case as per its understanding and obligations as well as its affiliation. We should think, and judge neutrally and impartially. Too much excitations and emotions were demonstrated from either party which does not help at all. I fully appreciate your kind efforts as I did yesterday Regards Kavouss
2016-02-07 16:53 GMT+01:00 Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>>: Greatly appreciated, James and Kavouss. Both Rosemary and I are traveling this weekend. We will do our best for tomorrow's call but will need more time for a written response.
Holly
Sent with Good (www.good.com <http://www.good.com/>)
From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2016 08:37:21 AM To: James Gannon Cc: Gregory, Holly; ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>; Thomas Rickert; Accountability Cross Community; ACCT-Staff; Sidley ICANN CCWG Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issu
Dear James, Certainly I agree with you that we should not rush. However, you very rightly said "Please allow our lawyers do prepare what they are able to do for the call and Im sure that formal written opinion will come when it is available. Also recognise that this is the weekend and full teams may not be available" .That is a valid approach which was missing in Holly's mail and you did kindly pick it up for which I am grateful to you. Yr statement is very valid and logique Kavouss
2016-02-07 15:33 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>: Legal analysis cannot be rushed or it is of no value to any of us. Please allow our lawyers do prepare what they are able to do for the call and Im sure that formal written opinion will come when it is available. Also recognise that this is the weekend and full teams may not be available.
-james
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Sunday 7 February 2016 at 2:19 p.m. To: "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>> Cc: "ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>" <ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issu
Dear Holly, Thank you very much. But the issue is too delicate, complex and sensitive. We do not accept only verbal explanation as said by you Quote " we will try to be prepared to address on the call." Unquote We need a memo describing t various aspects of the matter. Pls kindly parepare a MEMO i HEREBY REQUEST THE cO-Chair to urge our legal Council to prepare a formal MEMO. Failure to do so, considerable delay may be caused.to <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__caused.to&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od0...> the entire process. GAC MEMBERS WOULD CERTAINLY NOT HAPPY FOR ANY VERBAL EXPLANATION AND PERHAPS gnso too Regards Kavouss
2016-02-07 14:46 GMT+01:00 Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>>: Hi Thomas, we will try to be prepared to address on the call. Holly
Sent with Good (www.good.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.good.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=...>)
From: Thomas Rickert Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2016 03:03:45 PM To: Rosemary E. Fei; Gregory, Holly; Sidley ICANN CCWG; ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Mathieu Weill; ACCT-Staff; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issu
Dear Rosemary and Holly, This is to certify the review of the questions in the e-mail below. We do know this is extremely short notice, but it would be great if the answers could inform our discussion on this very topic next Monday, February 8th, 12.00 UTC. We do appreciate that time is too short for a written memo, but maybe one of you or team could offer initial answers during the call.
I hope to be correct in assuming that you have seen the compromise proposal under consideration with input primarily from Kavouss and Becky. Also, you may find Rafael's previous questions and the answers offered by Becky informative. Should these not be known, please send a note to staff so they can forward them to you.
Thank you very much.
Kind regards, Thomas
--- rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...>
Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail:
Von: "Perez Galindo, Rafael" <RPEREZGA@minetur.es <mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>> Datum: 6. Februar 2016 um 11:32:55 MEZ An: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>, "kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>" <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Kopie: "thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>" <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>> Betreff: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-chairs,
Det me draw your attention to the latest developments in the discussions regarding Rec 11 (former ST 18), namely the carve-out system put forward by Becky and backed by the GNSO.
While thanking Becky for this proposal, I believe we can all agree to acknowledge that the carve-out is not a mere adjustment, nor a tweak to complete or shape a package of measures, but it constitutes a major essential change, for it actually regulates the functioning of the EC with regards to the GAC, and could raise important political and legal concerns.
Hence, and prior to any possible endorsement, I kindly ask that a detailed legal analisys of the proposed text be commissioned to the Legal assistance by the Co-Chairs:
- who would decide whether the carve-out is applicable to a certain issue to be subject to a community decision
- according to what standard would that decision be taken? For instance: is it enough if Board mentions GAC Advice in its rationale as a source for its decision. Or would a substantial test be applied, i.e. checked whether the Board decision follows GAC Advice? In the latter case, would the carve-out also apply if the GAC Advice is only partially followed?
- what means of redress would be available for any party not in agreement with such a decision?
- would the GAC, according to this wording, be able to participate fully in the decision-making of the community mechanism on the following topics?:
1. Any Board decision on policies or implementation of delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs, which would be taken. having regard, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs)
2. Any Board decision on policy or implementation of new gTLDs, which would also take into consideration, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on new gTLDs)
Thank you and best regards
Rafael
________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] on behalf of James Gannon [james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>] Sent: 05 February 2016 21:15 To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Jorge, I think at this point the GAC needs to go back and consider the proposition that is on the table the the GNSO appears to be in a position to support.
We do not have the timelines available to us to continue to argue over this, the GNSO has come to rough support on a position now, I feel its time for the GAC to go back to its own processes with this proposition to evaluate it. We are all aware of the GACs wants in this, but that does not mean that the GNSO community will agree to them as we have laid out in our comments to the 3rd Draft proposal.
I feel that if we keep going around in circles over what the GNSO and GAC are potentially able to negotiate we will never end this process, and I think we all want to attempt to bring this to a close ASAP. I hope that the GAC can continue to show its flexibility and ability to compromise and work together with the broad community on this, no-one is setting out to disenfranchise any stakeholder group here, we are all trying to make this the least bad solution that we can all agree on. On this point no-one is winning and no-one is losing.
-James
On 05/02/2016, 8:03 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear Keith
Thank you very much for this full text of the gnso input.
I'm aware if the concerns expressed by the gnso, and as I have said several times, I consider them legitimate and relevant, although we may have different opinions on their degree of impact or the means to address them.
At the same time we all know that the GAC came a long way to reach a consensus input on the then ST18, now rec11. And such difficulties were based on concerns from a relevant number of governments whose concerns I feel we should also consider legitimate and worth consideration.
Rec11 was then based on a compromise, which still raised concerns from sectors of the gnso and from a number of governments.
I think the solution is not to privilege parts of the community in reaching a solution.
We need to take on board as many stakeholders and constituencies as possible.
In the last weeks we agreed, we all agreed, to take up important points made by the gnso on rec11: clarify that the Board has no new obligations, the obligation of a clear rationale, the clarification that Board decisions always have to be consistent with Bylaws, irrespective of the source of the advice on which such a decision is based.
On rec10 we also made additions to address concerns expressed around the accountability review of the GAC.
And again on rec11 -as I also said- I felt that Becky's initial proposal (at least as some of us understood it) was one possible means. And I think that if we narrow it down to the community IRP it could work.
But to word it in such broad terms as it is now has the effect I have repeatedly described. Our lawyers could analyze the scooe of such an exception and advise us.
If we agree that the GAC is a legitimate participant in the community mechanism, as we habe repeatedly and consistently agreed, then we cannot favour an overbroad carve-out, because the GAC would not be able to participate on an equal footing in the community mechanism.
In such case we need to clarify and word the carve-out in such terms that it is clear that we just want a very narrow carve-out and that this will not prevent the GAC from normally participating in the community mechanism, with a few exceptions.
If the intention is to have a broad carve-out, then we would not be able to agree.
But I hope that we are in the first case.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
Thanks Jorge,
A majority of the GNSO's constituent groups view the combination of Rec-1, Rec-10 and Rec-11 as "interlinked." The majority of GNSO groups (sufficient to reject) view ANY change of Board voting threshold for GAC consensus advice to be highly problematic. The GNSO's willingness to consider and accept Kavouss' suggested compromise of 60% is entirely dependent upon the further clarifications suggested by Becky in the Arasteh/Burr proposal.
I've attached the GNSO Council comments, which are a summary of the GNSO groups comments, for your further review. Here are the relevant texts:
From the GNSO Comments on Rec-1:
"Some in the GNSO have identified a clear link with Recommendations #10 & #11 and are of the view that the current balance between SO/ACs needs to be preserved in the Empowered Community, especially with respect to the GAC." [This means the status quo should be maintained -- the GAC should remain advisory and not have a decisional role.]
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-10:
"There are some concerns within the GNSO with the top down nature of accountability reviews, and the exemption of the GAC from this community requirement. It is also troubling that the GAC, further empowered if Recommendations #1 and #11 are adopted, would be exempted from the same periodic reviews as the other SO/ACs. All participants in the Community Mechanism should be subject to equivalent accountability reviews."
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-11:
"There is broad opposition to this recommendation as written. Most SG/Cs do not support the proposal to raise the threshold for a Board vote to reject GAC advice. All expressed serious concerns over the lack of specificity in the recommendation in relation to the requirements for GAC advice (such as the provision of rationale) and the possibility that this recommendation, if adopted, could unduly change the nature of the Board-GAC relationship and/or the position of the GAC vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs also believe that any CCWG recommendation on this topic should retain the current flexibility in the Bylaws where the Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in order to reject GAC advice."
"IPC, NCSG and the Registrars SG expressly objected to changing and specifying the threshold for Board action; the Registries SG and ISPCP Constituency did not object expressly but highlighted significant concerns about the implications of such a change. The Registries SG stated it was unlikely to support the 2/3 threshold for Board action unless three additional requirements (provision of a rationale, consistency with ICANN bylaws and within GAC scope, and defined consensus) applied to such GAC Advice. While BC and NPOC supported the change, both nevertheless also noted concerns over the implications, with the BC's support expressly conditioned upon certain qualifications being made to the proposal."
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 2:16 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es <mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>; jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>; thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements?
The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right?
Best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
Dear Jorge,
Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations.
The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it.
If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute.
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es <mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>; jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>; thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
This is an interesting question.
But what we have on the table is the third draft report.
This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some gnso members (who have proposed this)
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>>:
We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object?
Regards, Keith
From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es <mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM To: James M. Bladel; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>; Drazek, Keith Cc: thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-c <mailto:accountability-cross-c> ommunity@icann.org <mailto:ommunity@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either.
Best Rafael
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.
-------- Original message -------- From: "James M. Bladel" Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00) To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>, kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Cc: thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-c <mailto:accountability-cross-c> ommunity@icann.org <mailto:ommunity@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Hello Jorge -
Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC?
Thanks-
J.
On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%20on%20behalf%20of%0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>%3cmailto:kdrazek@ <mailto:kdrazek@>verisign.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__verisign.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=x-VQJVnOKEttRNXDaGtjg0qBUkOPFRCcWRuO7Pchyco&e=>>>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com><mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com><mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@ <mailto:seun.ojedeji@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com><mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbr <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbr> an chc <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>%3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b%3E>>onsulting.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__onsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=5KHnoAhrAjr7fAxFcnt_UZe1YtILpdAqVarvKqTo3pE&e=><http://onsulting.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__onsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=5KHnoAhrAjr7fAxFcnt_UZe1YtILpdAqVarvKqTo3pE&e=>>>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com><mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbra <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbra> nc hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>%3cmailto:paul.rose <mailto:paul.rose> nz weig@redbranchco> nsulting.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=MWcLj9QiWa6FkG9XkRKeXbvFGGWMKuSdoJZOVx0uFBM&e=><http://nsulting.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=MWcLj9QiWa6FkG9XkRKeXbvFGGWMKuSdoJZOVx0uFBM&e=>>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660><tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650><tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739><tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:B <mailto:B> ec ky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:ky.Burr@neustar.biz>%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@ <mailto:Becky.Burr@>neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>>>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavall <mailto:olgacavall> i@ gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>%3cmailto:olgacavalli@ <mailto:olgacavalli@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@ <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@>heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=>>>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.n <mailto:thomas@rickert.n> et %3cmailto:thomas@ <mailto:thomas@>rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>>> <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.n <mailto:thomas@rickert.n> et %3cmailto:thomas@ <mailto:thomas@>rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross <mailto:accountability-cross> -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org>>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross <mailto:accountability-cross> -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org>>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 <tel:%2B1.202.533.2932><tel:%2B1.202.533.2932 <tel:%2B1.202.533.2932>> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367><tel:%2B1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>> / +neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>> <http://www.neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=HrdlbmWrCO5JBFBy01CZkxzYffOEnj734nbsz6rmC3w&e=>>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>%3cmailto:olgacavalli@ <mailto:olgacavalli@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>> wrote:
> Brett > there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga > >> El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett >> <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mai >> lt >> o:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=>%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@ <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@>heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=>> >> escribió: >> >> Kavouss, >> >> Becky responded to this yesterday: >> >> Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table >> when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to >> Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email >> demonstrating this. >> >> I expect she will follow up soon. >> >> Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the >> GAC carve out to IRP. >> >> I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, >> but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of >> Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday. >> >> If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve >> this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have >> arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it. >> >> Best, >> >> Brett >> >> >> >> On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh >> <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto: >> ka >> vouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:vouss.arasteh@gmail.com>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@ <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>><mailto >> :k >> avo <mailto:kavo%0b <mailto:kavo%250b>>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@ <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>>> wrote: >> >> Dear Beckie >> As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have >> serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in >> the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and >> send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current >> text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED >> TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. >> As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be >> more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr >> revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial >> text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. >> Awaiting your action , I remain >> Regards >> Kavousd >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, >> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>> <mailto:%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a> dmin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom> .admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> >> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>> <mailto:%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote: >> >> Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky >> >> This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to >> (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged): >> >> == >> >> Von: >> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountabil <mailto:accountabil> >> it >> y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto: >> accountability-c> >> ross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr <mailto:accountability-cr><mailto:a <mailto:a> >> cc >> oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabil <mailto:accountabil> >> it >> y-cr%3cmailto:accoun <mailto:accoun>> >> tability-cr> >> oss-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann>. >> or >> g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:oss-community-bou <mailto:oss-community-bou> >> nc >> es@icann.org <mailto:es@icann.org>>>> >> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:acc <mailto:acc> >> ou >> nta >> bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cro <mailto:accountability-cro> >> ss >> -community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr <mailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr> >> os s-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:s-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky >> Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 >> An: Greg Shatan >> <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:greg <mailto:greg> >> sh >> atanipc@gmail.com <mailto:atanipc@gmail.com>%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@ <mailto:gregshatanipc@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>><mailto:gregsha <mailto:gregsha> >> t <mailto:gregshat%0b <mailto:gregshat%250b>>>>>anipc@gmail.com <mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto:anipc@gmail.com <mailto:anipc@gmail.com>><mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>; Mueller, >> Milton L >> <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.ed <mailto:milton@gatech.ed> >> u% 3cmailto:milton@ <mailto:milton@>gatech.edu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gatech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=SPAXWQC6Dsx9-zWUlTgefSw18mVTdfNEVkBp5qftNNY&e=>>><mailto:milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu><ma <mailto:milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton@gatech.edu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gatech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=SPAXWQC6Dsx9-zWUlTgefSw18mVTdfNEVkBp5qftNNY&e=><http://gat <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gat&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XT...> ech.edu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=q57UP-BUi36awfkk9v0_QmW_zo-iqc1g58fkIrTD4OM&e=>>>>> >> Cc: >> accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cros <mailto:accountability-cros> >> s- >> com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accoun <mailto:accoun> >> ta >> bility-cross-com> >> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-comm <mailto:accountability-cross-comm><mailto:accountab <mailto:accountab> >> il >> ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 <mailto:accountability-cross-comm%253> >> cm >> ailto:accountability> >> -cross-comm> >> unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org>><mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org>>> >> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, >> GAC consensus, and finishing >> >> I have a proposal for discussion. >> >> Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only >> consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we >> accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC >> cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of >> community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. >> In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than >> two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the >> Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of >> ICANN¹s Mission. >> >> I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might >> otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the >> 2/3rds rejection threshold. >> >> Just a thought - >> >> === >> >> Regards >> >> Jorge >> >> >> ________________________________ >> Brett Schaefer >> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory >> Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for >> National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation >> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE >> Washington, DC 20002 >> 202-608-6097 <tel:202-608-6097> >> >> http://heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http> >> -3 >> A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org-253chttps-3...> >> =h >> ttp-3A__> >> heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq <> 8M o8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__-26gt-3B-26gt-3B.org-5F-...> 6X _GRlaq8Mo8T> jDmrxdYa >> hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolh >> J2 >> mGN >> u >> 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > >> Von: Kavouss Arasteh >> [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>< >> ma >> ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@ <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>> >> ] >> Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 >> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM >> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>> <mailto:%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a> dmin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom> .admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> >> Cc: >> <jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto: >> jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:juka <mailto:juka> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:juka%0b>>> <mailto:juka%0b%3E%3E%3E>>cz@erst.dk <mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d <mailto:cz@erst.d> k>>>> >> <jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto: >> jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:juka <mailto:juka> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:juka%0b>>> <mailto:juka%0b%3E%3E%3E>>cz@erst.dk <mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d <mailto:cz@erst.d> k>>>>; >> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro <mailto:accountability-cro> >> ss >> -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com <mailto:accountability-cross-com><m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability <mailto:accountability>> >> -cross-com> >> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>>> >> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro <mailto:accountability-cro> >> ss >> -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com <mailto:accountability-cross-com><m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability <mailto:accountability>> >> -cross-com> >> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>>> >>> ; >> Becky Burr >> <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky <mailto:Becky>. >> Bu >> rr@neustar.biz <mailto:rr@neustar.biz>%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@ <mailto:Becky.Burr@>neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>>><mailto:Becky.Burr <mailto:Becky.Burr> <mailto:Becky.Burr%0b <mailto:Becky.Burr%250b>>>>>@neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><mailto:Becky <mailto:Becky> .Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Burr@neustar.biz>>>>; Thomas Rickert >> <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert <mailto:thomas@rickert> >> .n et%3cmailto:thomas@ <mailto:thomas@>rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>>; Mathieu Weill >> <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu <mailto:Mathieu>. >> Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Weill@afnic.fr>%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@ <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@>afnic.fr <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afnic.fr&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=Z8tDOMEnBfhmdWPrAzVwyG-OZ_TAZbVRCV4ezC9Uxyc&e=>>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We> <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b <mailto:Mathieu.We%250b>>>>>ill@afnic.fr <mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:ill@afnic.fr <mailto:ill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Math <mailto:Math> ieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>>; León Felipe >> Sánchez Ambía >> <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli <mailto:leonfeli> >> pe @sanchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>%3cmailto:leonfelipe@ <mailto:leonfelipe@>sanchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s> <mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s>%0b>>>>anchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=><http://anchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=>><mailto:leonfeli <mailto:leonfeli> pe@sanchez.mx <mailto:pe@sanchez.mx>>>>; >> Schneider Thomas BAKOM >> <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin>. >> ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider <mailto:Thomas.Schneider> >> @b >> akom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__akom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=5m1Wu4_QF6gCTq1iMMVb_273bS7EFLGYD9CyaejWu-E&e=>>> >> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bak <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bak> >> om >> .ad <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bako <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bako> m.ad <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__m.ad&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=8ZFX5vCcAFZmhESiMK7PID6EqBO7XzTYZKeiq-fOYrQ&s=RVgIuColcpz9CPw7S5EwY2Q0W1G_i0Xyp7XuxFjAxBI&e=>%0b>>>>min.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__min.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=jjfmbIWBm7Ffx6QzdROvG_rTO66AgO3JjqjFneu7scI&e=><http://min.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__min.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=jjfmbIWBm7Ffx6QzdROvG_rTO66AgO3JjqjFneu7scI&e=>>>>> >> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve >> Recommendation >> 1 and 11 issues >> >> Dear Beckie, >> Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member >> requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial >> Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page >> deal" if includes your original text. >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, >> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>> <mailto:%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a> dmin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom> .admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> >> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>> <mailto:%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote: >> Dear Kavouss >> >> In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of >> community >> IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many >> concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations. >> >> Regards >> >> Jorge >> >> Von: Kavouss Arasteh >> [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>< >> ma >> ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@ <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>> >> ] >> Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 >> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM >> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>> <mailto:%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a> dmin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom> .admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> >> Cc: >> <jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto: >> jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:juka <mailto:juka> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:juka%0b>>> <mailto:juka%0b%3E%3E%3E>>cz@erst.dk <mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d <mailto:cz@erst.d> k>>>> >> <jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto: >> jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:juka <mailto:juka> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>%3cmailto:juka%0b>>> <mailto:juka%0b%3E%3E%3E>>cz@erst.dk <mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d <mailto:cz@erst.d> k>>>>; >> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro <mailto:accountability-cro> >> ss >> -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com <mailto:accountability-cross-com><m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability <mailto:accountability>> >> -cross-com> >> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>>> >> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro <mailto:accountability-cro> >> ss >> -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com <mailto:accountability-cross-com><m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability <mailto:accountability>> >> -cross-com> >> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>>> >> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation >> 1 and 11 issues >> >> Dear All, >> Why Not taking initial Beckie,s >> Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other >> questions resulted from het revised text. >> Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards >> Kavousd >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, >> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>> <mailto:%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a> dmin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom> .admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> >> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>> <mailto:%0b%3E%3E%3E>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@ <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@>bakom.admin.ch <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote: >> Dear all >> >> I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which >> probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions >> we were having yesterday. >> >> A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any >> community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad >> and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community >> decisions which are relevant to it. >> >> This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was >> directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant. >> >> Regards >> >> Jorge >> >> Von: >> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountabil <mailto:accountabil> >> it >> y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto: >> accountability-c> >> ross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr <mailto:accountability-cr><mailto:a <mailto:a> >> cc >> oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabil <mailto:accountabil> >> it >> y-cr%3cmailto:accoun <mailto:accoun>> >> tability-cr> >> oss-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann>. >> or >> g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:oss-community-bou <mailto:oss-community-bou> >> nc >> es@icann.org <mailto:es@icann.org>>>> >> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:acc <mailto:acc> >> ou >> nta >> bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cro <mailto:accountability-cro> >> ss >> -community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr <mailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr> >> os s-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:s-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja >> Wolman >> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 >> An: 'CCWG Accountability' >> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro <mailto:accountability-cro> >> ss >> -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com <mailto:accountability-cross-com><m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability <mailto:accountability>> >> -cross-com> >> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>>> >> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation >> 1 and 11 issues >> >> Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all >> >> Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in >> order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the >> proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by >> Becky (email of 2 >> February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion: >> >> ³ >> Burr Proposal: >> >> >> ? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of >> Paragraph 23. >> >> >> >> The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the >> Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community >> power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s >> implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the >> Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in >> community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will >> not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to >> initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise >> a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN >> Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a >> mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice >> supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting >> the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause >> ICANN to violate its Bylaws.² >> >> However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text >> suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is >> that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision >> based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it >> refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision >> based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) >> should be the text to be considered at today¹s call. >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Finn and Julia >> >> >> >> Julia Katja Wolman >> >> DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY >> >> Dahlerups Pakhus >> Langelinie Allé 17 >> DK-2100 København Ø >> Telephone: +45 3529 1000 <tel:%2B45%203529%201000> >> Direct: +45 35291308 <tel:%2B45%2035291308> >> E-mail: >> jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto >> :j >> ukacz@erst.dk <mailto:ukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukac <mailto:jukac> >> z@erst.dk <mailto:z@erst.dk><mailto:z@erst.dk <mailto:z@erst.dk>>>> >> >> http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmB3s21IfuNbh13VrL_P3pm-s8gzWnm-3M6j6nI_348&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v> >> 2/ >> url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk...>. >> co >> m/v2/url> >> ?u=http- >> 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__3A-5F-5Fwww.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=8ZFX5vCcAFZmhESiMK7PID6EqBO7XzTYZKeiq-fOYrQ&s=i4p0HP1Ju8U9GmbeQkrPINppAlr5ZluamPZjZX-WftI&e=><http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__3a-5F-5Fwww.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=WEbCbAM7VuGbzjgvfUiwjCbGrx9N0Rf_XbVUUhaPeeY&e=>>&d >> =C wIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif >> zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioS >> UB >> 1PW >> w >> WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= > >> >> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH >> >> P Please consider the environment before printing this email. >> >> >> >> >> >> Fra: >> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountabil <mailto:accountabil> >> it >> y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto: >> accountability-c> >> ross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr <mailto:accountability-cr><mailto:a <mailto:a> >> cc >> oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabil <mailto:accountabil> >> it >> y-cr%3cmailto:accoun <mailto:accoun>> >> tability-cr> >> oss-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann>. >> or >> g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:oss-community-bou <mailto:oss-community-bou> >> nc >> es@icann.org <mailto:es@icann.org>>>> >> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:acc <mailto:acc> >> ou >> nta >> bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cro <mailto:accountability-cro> >> ss >> -community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr <mailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr> >> os s-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:s-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky >> Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 >> Til: Kavouss Arasteh; >> accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cros <mailto:accountability-cros> >> s- >> com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accoun <mailto:accoun> >> ta >> bility-cross-com> >> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-comm <mailto:accountability-cross-comm><mailto:accountab <mailto:accountab> >> il >> ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 <mailto:accountability-cross-comm%253> >> cm >> ailto:accountability> >> -cross-comm> >> unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org>><mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org>>>; >> Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía >> Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and >> 11 issues >> >> Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been >> working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a >> consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to >> resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am >> supportive of this package deal, as described below (the >> description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I >> appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table >> and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus! >> >> >> 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 >> · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: >> >> The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the >> Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community >> power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s >> implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free >> to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, >> but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed >> thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a >> Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This >> carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work >> with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to >> implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in >> Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. >> · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out >> and add the following language to cover situations that would >> otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: >> >> The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where >> the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the >> community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s >> implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in >> support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in >> support and no more than one objects. >> 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of >> GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority >> requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the >> standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. >> 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 >> February) >> >> * Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above >> as first final reading; >> * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above >> as first final reading; and >> * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above >> as first final reading. >> 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd >> final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, >> noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach >> consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on >> Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). >> >> >> >> J. Beckwith Burr >> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer >> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 >> Office: +1.202.533.2932 <tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / >> neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><http://www.neus <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neus&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00...> >> ta r.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=ENjjcG0Hicj2PD0T3Zsbg22ppEoqQxmwliklHtZlPSI&e=><http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz-253e-253chttp-3A_www.neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=iTpR0rMW7n5cpCjw_ksnW_E7ByuJeJSZk243T0P7V7c&e=>>> >> >> From: Kavouss Arasteh >> <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto: >> ka >> vouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:vouss.arasteh@gmail.com>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@ <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>><mailto >> :k >> avo <mailto:kavo%0b <mailto:kavo%250b>>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail>. com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@ <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@>gmail.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>>
>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM >> To: Accountability Community >> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro <mailto:accountability-cro> >> ss >> -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com <mailto:accountability-cross-com><m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability <mailto:accountability>> >> -cross-com> >> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>>> >>> , >> Becky Burr >> <becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky <mailto:becky>. >> bu >> rr@neustar.biz <mailto:rr@neustar.biz>%3cmailto:becky.burr@ <mailto:becky.burr@>neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>>><mailto:becky.burr <mailto:becky.burr> <mailto:becky.burr%0b <mailto:becky.burr%250b>>>>>@neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><mailto:becky <mailto:becky> .burr@neustar.biz <mailto:burr@neustar.biz>>>>, Mathieu Weill >> <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu <mailto:Mathieu>. >> Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Weill@afnic.fr>%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@ <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@>afnic.fr <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afnic.fr&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=Z8tDOMEnBfhmdWPrAzVwyG-OZ_TAZbVRCV4ezC9Uxyc&e=>>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We> <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b <mailto:Mathieu.We%250b>>>>>ill@afnic.fr <mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:ill@afnic.fr <mailto:ill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Math <mailto:Math> ieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>>, Thomas Rickert >> <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert <mailto:thomas@rickert> >> .n et%3cmailto:thomas@ <mailto:thomas@>rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>>, León Felipe Sánchez >> Ambía >> <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli <mailto:leonfeli> >> pe @sanchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>%3cmailto:leonfelipe@ <mailto:leonfelipe@>sanchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s> <mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s>%0b>>>>anchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=><http://anchez.mx <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=>><mailto:leonfeli <mailto:leonfeli> pe@sanchez.mx <mailto:pe@sanchez.mx>>>> >> Subject: <no subject> >> >> >> Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues >> >> First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: >> We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a >> coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of >> assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some >> adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the >> Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in >> advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA >> stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is >> working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual >> meetings, >> >> I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we >> need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible >> set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely >> insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single >> SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to >> the extent practiceable and possible the entire community. >> >> We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well >> as those of Recommendation 11 >> >> We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the >> interested parties together. >> >> However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network >> connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of >> the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the >> entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection. >> >> We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last >> kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last >> kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area >> >> We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our >> current position which is different from each other and not rule >> out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession >> towards each other position .We need to take every possible >> initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability. >> >> Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a >> participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should >> really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently >> >> To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be >> accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ >> decomposed . >> >> The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical >> >> 1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by >> Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. >> Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the >> Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No >> other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. >> Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be >> held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is >> a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the >> CCWG to take it as it is >> >> I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are >> of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that >> my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming >> change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard >> procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the >> compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb >> and >> 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. >> Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested >> clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or >> standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly >> necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it. >> >> Package Deal >> >> 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 >> >> >> >> · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: >> >> >> >> The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the >> Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community >> power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s >> implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free >> to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, >> but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed >> thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a >> Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This >> carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work >> with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to >> implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in >> Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. >> >> >> >> · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out >> and add the following language to cover situations that would >> otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: >> >> >> >> The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where >> the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the >> community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s >> implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in >> support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in >> support and no more than one objects. >> >> >> >> 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of >> GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority >> requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the >> standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. >> >> >> >> 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 >> February) >> >> >> >> · Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above >> as first final reading; >> >> · Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above >> as first final reading; and >> >> · Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described >> above as first final reading. >> >> >> >> 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd >> final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, >> noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach >> consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on >> Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). >> >> Kavouss >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> >> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cros <mailto:Accountability-Cros> >> s- >> Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accoun <mailto:Accoun> >> ta >> bility-Cross-Com> >> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm><mailto:Accountab <mailto:Accountab> >> il >> ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%253> >> cm >> ailto:Accountability> >> -Cross-Comm> >> unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org>><mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org>>> >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m> >> ai >> lma >> n >> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET >> eD >> ALC >> _ >> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 >> Ho >> zbe >> O >> ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w >> C7 >> M&e >> = >> >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_> >> ma >> ilm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai> lm%0b>>>>a >> n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIE >> Te >> DAL >> C >> _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7- >> 2H >> ozb >> e >> OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X- >> wC >> 7M& >> e >> = > >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> >> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cros <mailto:Accountability-Cros> >> s- >> Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accoun <mailto:Accoun> >> ta >> bility-Cross-Com> >> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm><mailto:Accountab <mailto:Accountab> >> il >> ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%253> >> cm >> ailto:Accountability> >> -Cross-Comm> >> unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org>><mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org>>> >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m> >> ai >> lma >> n >> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET >> eD >> ALC >> _ >> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 >> Ho >> zbe >> O >> ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w >> C7 >> M&e >> = >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> >> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cros <mailto:Accountability-Cros> >> s- >> Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accoun <mailto:Accoun> >> ta >> bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org>>> >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m> >> ai >> lma >> n >> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET >> eD >> ALC >> _ >> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 >> Ho >> zbe >> O >> ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w >> C7 >> M&e >> = > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross <mailto:Accountability-Cross> > -C > omm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Account <mailto:Account> > ab > ility-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org>>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma> > il > man > _ > listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD > AL > C_l > U > Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hoz > be > OZX > Y > oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& > e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross- <mailto:Accountability-Cross-> Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accounta <mailto:Accounta> bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross- <mailto:Accountability-Cross-> Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accounta <mailto:Accounta> bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross- <mailto:Accountability-Cross-> Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accounta <mailto:Accounta> bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross- <mailto:Accountability-Cross-> Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>%3cmailto:Accounta <mailto:Accounta> bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross- <mailto:Accountability-Cross-> Co mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-C <mailto:Accountability-Cross-C> ommunity@icann.org <mailto:ommunity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> <GNSO Council Response to CCWG-Accountability - FINAL - 22 January 2016.pdf>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
**************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
****************************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Co-Chairs, Members, Participants and Staff, Attached please find our responses to the questions certified on February 6th and discussed on today’s call. Kind regards, Holly and Rosemary HOLLY J. GREGORY Partner and Co-Chair Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Group Sidley Austin LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com/> [http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png]<http://www.sidley.com/> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP From: Gregory, Holly Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2016 8:47 AM To: Thomas Rickert; Rosemary E. Fei; Sidley ICANN CCWG; ICANN@adlercolvin.com Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Mathieu Weill; ACCT-Staff; Accountability Cross Community Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issu Hi Thomas, we will try to be prepared to address on the call. Holly Sent with Good (www.good.com<http://www.good.com>) ________________________________ From: Thomas Rickert Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2016 03:03:45 PM To: Rosemary E. Fei; Gregory, Holly; Sidley ICANN CCWG; ICANN@adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Mathieu Weill; ACCT-Staff; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issu Dear Rosemary and Holly, This is to certify the review of the questions in the e-mail below. We do know this is extremely short notice, but it would be great if the answers could inform our discussion on this very topic next Monday, February 8th, 12.00 UTC. We do appreciate that time is too short for a written memo, but maybe one of you or team could offer initial answers during the call. I hope to be correct in assuming that you have seen the compromise proposal under consideration with input primarily from Kavouss and Becky. Also, you may find Rafael's previous questions and the answers offered by Becky informative. Should these not be known, please send a note to staff so they can forward them to you. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Thomas --- rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...> Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail: Von: "Perez Galindo, Rafael" <RPEREZGA@minetur.es<mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>> Datum: 6. Februar 2016 um 11:32:55 MEZ An: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>, "kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>" <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Kopie: "thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>" <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>> Betreff: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Co-chairs, Det me draw your attention to the latest developments in the discussions regarding Rec 11 (former ST 18), namely the carve-out system put forward by Becky and backed by the GNSO. While thanking Becky for this proposal, I believe we can all agree to acknowledge that the carve-out is not a mere adjustment, nor a tweak to complete or shape a package of measures, but it constitutes a major essential change, for it actually regulates the functioning of the EC with regards to the GAC, and could raise important political and legal concerns. Hence, and prior to any possible endorsement, I kindly ask that a detailed legal analisys of the proposed text be commissioned to the Legal assistance by the Co-Chairs: - who would decide whether the carve-out is applicable to a certain issue to be subject to a community decision - according to what standard would that decision be taken? For instance: is it enough if Board mentions GAC Advice in its rationale as a source for its decision. Or would a substantial test be applied, i.e. checked whether the Board decision follows GAC Advice? In the latter case, would the carve-out also apply if the GAC Advice is only partially followed? - what means of redress would be available for any party not in agreement with such a decision? - would the GAC, according to this wording, be able to participate fully in the decision-making of the community mechanism on the following topics?: 1. Any Board decision on policies or implementation of delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs, which would be taken. having regard, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs) 2. Any Board decision on policy or implementation of new gTLDs, which would also take into consideration, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on new gTLDs) Thank you and best regards Rafael ________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] on behalf of James Gannon [james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>] Sent: 05 February 2016 21:15 To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Jorge, I think at this point the GAC needs to go back and consider the proposition that is on the table the the GNSO appears to be in a position to support. We do not have the timelines available to us to continue to argue over this, the GNSO has come to rough support on a position now, I feel its time for the GAC to go back to its own processes with this proposition to evaluate it. We are all aware of the GACs wants in this, but that does not mean that the GNSO community will agree to them as we have laid out in our comments to the 3rd Draft proposal. I feel that if we keep going around in circles over what the GNSO and GAC are potentially able to negotiate we will never end this process, and I think we all want to attempt to bring this to a close ASAP. I hope that the GAC can continue to show its flexibility and ability to compromise and work together with the broad community on this, no-one is setting out to disenfranchise any stakeholder group here, we are all trying to make this the least bad solution that we can all agree on. On this point no-one is winning and no-one is losing. -James On 05/02/2016, 8:03 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Keith Thank you very much for this full text of the gnso input. I'm aware if the concerns expressed by the gnso, and as I have said several times, I consider them legitimate and relevant, although we may have different opinions on their degree of impact or the means to address them. At the same time we all know that the GAC came a long way to reach a consensus input on the then ST18, now rec11. And such difficulties were based on concerns from a relevant number of governments whose concerns I feel we should also consider legitimate and worth consideration. Rec11 was then based on a compromise, which still raised concerns from sectors of the gnso and from a number of governments. I think the solution is not to privilege parts of the community in reaching a solution. We need to take on board as many stakeholders and constituencies as possible. In the last weeks we agreed, we all agreed, to take up important points made by the gnso on rec11: clarify that the Board has no new obligations, the obligation of a clear rationale, the clarification that Board decisions always have to be consistent with Bylaws, irrespective of the source of the advice on which such a decision is based. On rec10 we also made additions to address concerns expressed around the accountability review of the GAC. And again on rec11 -as I also said- I felt that Becky's initial proposal (at least as some of us understood it) was one possible means. And I think that if we narrow it down to the community IRP it could work. But to word it in such broad terms as it is now has the effect I have repeatedly described. Our lawyers could analyze the scooe of such an exception and advise us. If we agree that the GAC is a legitimate participant in the community mechanism, as we habe repeatedly and consistently agreed, then we cannot favour an overbroad carve-out, because the GAC would not be able to participate on an equal footing in the community mechanism. In such case we need to clarify and word the carve-out in such terms that it is clear that we just want a very narrow carve-out and that this will not prevent the GAC from normally participating in the community mechanism, with a few exceptions. If the intention is to have a broad carve-out, then we would not be able to agree. But I hope that we are in the first case. best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 05.02.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>: Thanks Jorge, A majority of the GNSO's constituent groups view the combination of Rec-1, Rec-10 and Rec-11 as "interlinked." The majority of GNSO groups (sufficient to reject) view ANY change of Board voting threshold for GAC consensus advice to be highly problematic. The GNSO's willingness to consider and accept Kavouss' suggested compromise of 60% is entirely dependent upon the further clarifications suggested by Becky in the Arasteh/Burr proposal. I've attached the GNSO Council comments, which are a summary of the GNSO groups comments, for your further review. Here are the relevant texts: From the GNSO Comments on Rec-1: "Some in the GNSO have identified a clear link with Recommendations #10 & #11 and are of the view that the current balance between SO/ACs needs to be preserved in the Empowered Community, especially with respect to the GAC." [This means the status quo should be maintained -- the GAC should remain advisory and not have a decisional role.] From the GNSO Comment on Rec-10: "There are some concerns within the GNSO with the top down nature of accountability reviews, and the exemption of the GAC from this community requirement. It is also troubling that the GAC, further empowered if Recommendations #1 and #11 are adopted, would be exempted from the same periodic reviews as the other SO/ACs. All participants in the Community Mechanism should be subject to equivalent accountability reviews." From the GNSO Comment on Rec-11: "There is broad opposition to this recommendation as written. Most SG/Cs do not support the proposal to raise the threshold for a Board vote to reject GAC advice. All expressed serious concerns over the lack of specificity in the recommendation in relation to the requirements for GAC advice (such as the provision of rationale) and the possibility that this recommendation, if adopted, could unduly change the nature of the Board-GAC relationship and/or the position of the GAC vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs also believe that any CCWG recommendation on this topic should retain the current flexibility in the Bylaws where the Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in order to reject GAC advice." "IPC, NCSG and the Registrars SG expressly objected to changing and specifying the threshold for Board action; the Registries SG and ISPCP Constituency did not object expressly but highlighted significant concerns about the implications of such a change. The Registries SG stated it was unlikely to support the 2/3 threshold for Board action unless three additional requirements (provision of a rationale, consistency with ICANN bylaws and within GAC scope, and defined consensus) applied to such GAC Advice. While BC and NPOC supported the change, both nevertheless also noted concerns over the implications, with the BC's support expressly conditioned upon certain qualifications being made to the proposal." Regards, Keith -----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 2:16 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es<mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>; jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>; thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Keith I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements? The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right? Best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>: Dear Jorge, Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations. The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it. If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute. Regards, Keith -----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es<mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>; jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>; thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Keith This is an interesting question. But what we have on the table is the third draft report. This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some gnso members (who have proposed this) best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>: We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object? Regards, Keith From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM To: James M. Bladel; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; Drazek, Keith Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-c ommunity@icann.org<mailto:ommunity@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either. Best Rafael Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos. -------- Original message -------- From: "James M. Bladel" Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00) To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-c ommunity@icann.org<mailto:ommunity@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Hello Jorge - Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC? Thanks- J. On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com%3cmailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__verisign.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=x-VQJVnOKEttRNXDaGtjg0qBUkOPFRCcWRuO7Pchyco&e=>>>>: The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days. Regards, Keith Sent from my iPhone On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com><mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>> wrote: Hi Paul, You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here. I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible. As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC. I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following: 1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP) I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it) Regards On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com><mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbr an chc <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b>>onsulting.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__onsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=5KHnoAhrAjr7fAxFcnt_UZe1YtILpdAqVarvKqTo3pE&e=><http://onsulting.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__onsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=5KHnoAhrAjr7fAxFcnt_UZe1YtILpdAqVarvKqTo3pE&e=>>>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com><mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbra nc hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rose nz weig@redbranchco> nsulting.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=MWcLj9QiWa6FkG9XkRKeXbvFGGWMKuSdoJZOVx0uFBM&e=><http://nsulting.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=MWcLj9QiWa6FkG9XkRKeXbvFGGWMKuSdoJZOVx0uFBM&e=>>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:B ec ky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:ky.Burr@neustar.biz>%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>>>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavall i@ gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=>>>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>>> <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / +neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>> <http://www.neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=HrdlbmWrCO5JBFBy01CZkxzYffOEnj734nbsz6rmC3w&e=>> On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>> wrote: Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mai lt o:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=>%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=>> escribió: Kavouss, Becky responded to this yesterday: Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this. I expect she will follow up soon. Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP. I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday. If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it. Best, Brett On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: ka vouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:vouss.arasteh@gmail.com>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>><mailto :k avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>>> wrote: Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged): == Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountabil it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org<mailto:es@icann.org>>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cro ss -community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:greg sh atanipc@gmail.com<mailto:atanipc@gmail.com>%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>><mailto:gregsha t <mailto:gregshat%0b>>>>anipc@gmail.com<mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.ed u% 3cmailto:milton@gatech.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gatech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=SPAXWQC6Dsx9-zWUlTgefSw18mVTdfNEVkBp5qftNNY&e=>>><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<ma <mailto:milton@gatech.edu%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton@gatech.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gatech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=SPAXWQC6Dsx9-zWUlTgefSw18mVTdfNEVkBp5qftNNY&e=><http://gat<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gat&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=WEOI2s3x2bkzEcuI6sDmynpBYdCfQu9Gx1c8Dm9xmCA&e=> ech.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=q57UP-BUi36awfkk9v0_QmW_zo-iqc1g58fkIrTD4OM&e=>>>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cros s- com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun ta bility-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 cm ailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing I have a proposal for discussion. Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission. I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold. Just a thought - === Regards Jorge ________________________________ 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 http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http -3 A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org-253chttps-3A_urldefense.proofpoint.com_v2_url-3Fu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=Gtc6E6VHfgb_i0XKDZwjHaHm1RkAHvgH4oUQoopUHXc&e=> =h ttp-3A__> heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq> 8M o8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__-26gt-3B-26gt-3B.org-5F-26d-3Dcwigaq-26c-3Dmoptnlvtietedalc-5Flulrw-26r-3D62cjfoifzm&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=REtqw8XE73ZxbVu-e_HhGfX4ZGLz4PLhRG4i3BAn3uU&e=> 6X _GRlaq8Mo8T> jDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolh J2 mGN u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< ma ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>> ] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> ; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky. Bu rr@neustar.biz<mailto:rr@neustar.biz>%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>>><mailto:Becky.Burr <mailto:Becky.Burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><mailto:Becky .Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Burr@neustar.biz>>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Weill@afnic.fr>%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afnic.fr&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=Z8tDOMEnBfhmdWPrAzVwyG-OZ_TAZbVRCV4ezC9Uxyc&e=>>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math ieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli pe @sanchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=><http://anchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=>><mailto:leonfeli pe@sanchez.mx<mailto:pe@sanchez.mx>>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin. ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider @b akom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__akom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=5m1Wu4_QF6gCTq1iMMVb_273bS7EFLGYD9CyaejWu-E&e=>>> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bak om .ad <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bako m.ad%0b>>>>min.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__min.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=jjfmbIWBm7Ffx6QzdROvG_rTO66AgO3JjqjFneu7scI&e=><http://min.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__min.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=jjfmbIWBm7Ffx6QzdROvG_rTO66AgO3JjqjFneu7scI&e=>>>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations. Regards Jorge Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< ma ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>> ] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote: Dear all I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday. A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it. This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant. Regards Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountabil it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org<mailto:es@icann.org>>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cro ss -community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion: ³ Burr Proposal: ? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23. The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.² However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call. Best regards, Finn and Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto :j ukacz@erst.dk<mailto:ukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukac z@erst.dk<mailto:z@erst.dk><mailto:z@erst.dk>>> http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmB3s21IfuNbh13VrL_P3pm-s8gzWnm-3M6j6nI_348&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v 2/ url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk-253chttps-3A_urldefense.proofpoint&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=Ijs5G7Ftbj3C-WUg-8E5J-aeUiLlyHyrAA9dgrbn_kg&e=>. co m/v2/url> ?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__3a-5F-5Fwww.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=WEbCbAM7VuGbzjgvfUiwjCbGrx9N0Rf_XbVUUhaPeeY&e=>>&d =C wIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioS UB 1PW w WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= > MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountabil it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org<mailto:es@icann.org>>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cro ss -community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cros s- com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun ta bility-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 cm ailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus! 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) * Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><http://www.neus<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neus&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=2PUd-2B5kmyJjzfZM90Pim0LySYCYfR8ID6S63UrXus&e=> ta r.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=ENjjcG0Hicj2PD0T3Zsbg22ppEoqQxmwliklHtZlPSI&e=><http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz-253e-253chttp-3A_www.neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=iTpR0rMW7n5cpCjw_ksnW_E7ByuJeJSZk243T0P7V7c&e=>>> From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: ka vouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:vouss.arasteh@gmail.com>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>><mailto :k avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail. com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> , Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky. bu rr@neustar.biz<mailto:rr@neustar.biz>%3cmailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>>><mailto:becky.burr <mailto:becky.burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><mailto:becky .burr@neustar.biz<mailto:burr@neustar.biz>>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Weill@afnic.fr>%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afnic.fr&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=Z8tDOMEnBfhmdWPrAzVwyG-OZ_TAZbVRCV4ezC9Uxyc&e=>>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math ieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli pe @sanchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=><http://anchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=>><mailto:leonfeli pe@sanchez.mx<mailto:pe@sanchez.mx>>>> Subject: <no subject> Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings, I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community. We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11 We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together. However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection. We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability. Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed . The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical 1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it. Package Deal 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) · Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; · Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and · Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cros s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 cm ailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e = <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ ma ilm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lm%0b>>>>a n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIE Te DAL C _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7- 2H ozb e OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X- wC 7M& e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cros s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 cm ailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e = _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cros s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e = _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross -C omm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Account ab ility-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma il man _ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD AL C_l U Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hoz be OZX Y oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e= _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-C ommunity@icann.org<mailto:ommunity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> <GNSO Council Response to CCWG-Accountability - FINAL - 22 January 2016.pdf> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************
Just a note that I am unable to chat on Adobe but have noted Brett Schaefer's point for the bylaw drafting stage. Sent with Good (www.good.com) ________________________________ From: Gregory, Holly Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 09:24:40 PM To: Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Mathieu Weill; Accountability Cross Community; ACCT-Staff Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG; ICANN@adlercolvin.com; Rosemary E. Fei Subject: Sidley/Adler Response to Questions Certified re Burr-Arasteh Proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issue Dear Co-Chairs, Members, Participants and Staff, Attached please find our responses to the questions certified on February 6th and discussed on today’s call. Kind regards, Holly and Rosemary HOLLY J. GREGORY Partner and Co-Chair Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Group Sidley Austin LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com/> [http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png]<http://www.sidley.com/> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP From: Gregory, Holly Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2016 8:47 AM To: Thomas Rickert; Rosemary E. Fei; Sidley ICANN CCWG; ICANN@adlercolvin.com Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Mathieu Weill; ACCT-Staff; Accountability Cross Community Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issu Hi Thomas, we will try to be prepared to address on the call. Holly Sent with Good (www.good.com<http://www.good.com>) ________________________________ From: Thomas Rickert Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2016 03:03:45 PM To: Rosemary E. Fei; Gregory, Holly; Sidley ICANN CCWG; ICANN@adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Mathieu Weill; ACCT-Staff; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issu Dear Rosemary and Holly, This is to certify the review of the questions in the e-mail below. We do know this is extremely short notice, but it would be great if the answers could inform our discussion on this very topic next Monday, February 8th, 12.00 UTC. We do appreciate that time is too short for a written memo, but maybe one of you or team could offer initial answers during the call. I hope to be correct in assuming that you have seen the compromise proposal under consideration with input primarily from Kavouss and Becky. Also, you may find Rafael's previous questions and the answers offered by Becky informative. Should these not be known, please send a note to staff so they can forward them to you. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Thomas --- rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=O...> Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail: Von: "Perez Galindo, Rafael" <RPEREZGA@minetur.es<mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>> Datum: 6. Februar 2016 um 11:32:55 MEZ An: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>, "kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>" <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Kopie: "thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>" <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>> Betreff: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Co-chairs, Det me draw your attention to the latest developments in the discussions regarding Rec 11 (former ST 18), namely the carve-out system put forward by Becky and backed by the GNSO. While thanking Becky for this proposal, I believe we can all agree to acknowledge that the carve-out is not a mere adjustment, nor a tweak to complete or shape a package of measures, but it constitutes a major essential change, for it actually regulates the functioning of the EC with regards to the GAC, and could raise important political and legal concerns. Hence, and prior to any possible endorsement, I kindly ask that a detailed legal analisys of the proposed text be commissioned to the Legal assistance by the Co-Chairs: - who would decide whether the carve-out is applicable to a certain issue to be subject to a community decision - according to what standard would that decision be taken? For instance: is it enough if Board mentions GAC Advice in its rationale as a source for its decision. Or would a substantial test be applied, i.e. checked whether the Board decision follows GAC Advice? In the latter case, would the carve-out also apply if the GAC Advice is only partially followed? - what means of redress would be available for any party not in agreement with such a decision? - would the GAC, according to this wording, be able to participate fully in the decision-making of the community mechanism on the following topics?: 1. Any Board decision on policies or implementation of delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs, which would be taken. having regard, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs) 2. Any Board decision on policy or implementation of new gTLDs, which would also take into consideration, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on new gTLDs) Thank you and best regards Rafael ________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] on behalf of James Gannon [james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>] Sent: 05 February 2016 21:15 To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Jorge, I think at this point the GAC needs to go back and consider the proposition that is on the table the the GNSO appears to be in a position to support. We do not have the timelines available to us to continue to argue over this, the GNSO has come to rough support on a position now, I feel its time for the GAC to go back to its own processes with this proposition to evaluate it. We are all aware of the GACs wants in this, but that does not mean that the GNSO community will agree to them as we have laid out in our comments to the 3rd Draft proposal. I feel that if we keep going around in circles over what the GNSO and GAC are potentially able to negotiate we will never end this process, and I think we all want to attempt to bring this to a close ASAP. I hope that the GAC can continue to show its flexibility and ability to compromise and work together with the broad community on this, no-one is setting out to disenfranchise any stakeholder group here, we are all trying to make this the least bad solution that we can all agree on. On this point no-one is winning and no-one is losing. -James On 05/02/2016, 8:03 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Keith Thank you very much for this full text of the gnso input. I'm aware if the concerns expressed by the gnso, and as I have said several times, I consider them legitimate and relevant, although we may have different opinions on their degree of impact or the means to address them. At the same time we all know that the GAC came a long way to reach a consensus input on the then ST18, now rec11. And such difficulties were based on concerns from a relevant number of governments whose concerns I feel we should also consider legitimate and worth consideration. Rec11 was then based on a compromise, which still raised concerns from sectors of the gnso and from a number of governments. I think the solution is not to privilege parts of the community in reaching a solution. We need to take on board as many stakeholders and constituencies as possible. In the last weeks we agreed, we all agreed, to take up important points made by the gnso on rec11: clarify that the Board has no new obligations, the obligation of a clear rationale, the clarification that Board decisions always have to be consistent with Bylaws, irrespective of the source of the advice on which such a decision is based. On rec10 we also made additions to address concerns expressed around the accountability review of the GAC. And again on rec11 -as I also said- I felt that Becky's initial proposal (at least as some of us understood it) was one possible means. And I think that if we narrow it down to the community IRP it could work. But to word it in such broad terms as it is now has the effect I have repeatedly described. Our lawyers could analyze the scooe of such an exception and advise us. If we agree that the GAC is a legitimate participant in the community mechanism, as we habe repeatedly and consistently agreed, then we cannot favour an overbroad carve-out, because the GAC would not be able to participate on an equal footing in the community mechanism. In such case we need to clarify and word the carve-out in such terms that it is clear that we just want a very narrow carve-out and that this will not prevent the GAC from normally participating in the community mechanism, with a few exceptions. If the intention is to have a broad carve-out, then we would not be able to agree. But I hope that we are in the first case. best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 05.02.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>: Thanks Jorge, A majority of the GNSO's constituent groups view the combination of Rec-1, Rec-10 and Rec-11 as "interlinked." The majority of GNSO groups (sufficient to reject) view ANY change of Board voting threshold for GAC consensus advice to be highly problematic. The GNSO's willingness to consider and accept Kavouss' suggested compromise of 60% is entirely dependent upon the further clarifications suggested by Becky in the Arasteh/Burr proposal. I've attached the GNSO Council comments, which are a summary of the GNSO groups comments, for your further review. Here are the relevant texts: From the GNSO Comments on Rec-1: "Some in the GNSO have identified a clear link with Recommendations #10 & #11 and are of the view that the current balance between SO/ACs needs to be preserved in the Empowered Community, especially with respect to the GAC." [This means the status quo should be maintained -- the GAC should remain advisory and not have a decisional role.] From the GNSO Comment on Rec-10: "There are some concerns within the GNSO with the top down nature of accountability reviews, and the exemption of the GAC from this community requirement. It is also troubling that the GAC, further empowered if Recommendations #1 and #11 are adopted, would be exempted from the same periodic reviews as the other SO/ACs. All participants in the Community Mechanism should be subject to equivalent accountability reviews." From the GNSO Comment on Rec-11: "There is broad opposition to this recommendation as written. Most SG/Cs do not support the proposal to raise the threshold for a Board vote to reject GAC advice. All expressed serious concerns over the lack of specificity in the recommendation in relation to the requirements for GAC advice (such as the provision of rationale) and the possibility that this recommendation, if adopted, could unduly change the nature of the Board-GAC relationship and/or the position of the GAC vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs also believe that any CCWG recommendation on this topic should retain the current flexibility in the Bylaws where the Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in order to reject GAC advice." "IPC, NCSG and the Registrars SG expressly objected to changing and specifying the threshold for Board action; the Registries SG and ISPCP Constituency did not object expressly but highlighted significant concerns about the implications of such a change. The Registries SG stated it was unlikely to support the 2/3 threshold for Board action unless three additional requirements (provision of a rationale, consistency with ICANN bylaws and within GAC scope, and defined consensus) applied to such GAC Advice. While BC and NPOC supported the change, both nevertheless also noted concerns over the implications, with the BC's support expressly conditioned upon certain qualifications being made to the proposal." Regards, Keith -----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 2:16 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es<mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>; jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>; thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Keith I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements? The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right? Best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>: Dear Jorge, Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations. The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it. If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute. Regards, Keith -----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es<mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>; jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>; thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Keith This is an interesting question. But what we have on the table is the third draft report. This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some gnso members (who have proposed this) best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>: We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object? Regards, Keith From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM To: James M. Bladel; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; Drazek, Keith Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-c ommunity@icann.org<mailto:ommunity@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either. Best Rafael Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos. -------- Original message -------- From: "James M. Bladel" Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00) To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-c ommunity@icann.org<mailto:ommunity@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Hello Jorge - Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC? Thanks- J. On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com%3cmailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__verisign.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=x-VQJVnOKEttRNXDaGtjg0qBUkOPFRCcWRuO7Pchyco&e=>>>>: The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days. Regards, Keith Sent from my iPhone On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com><mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>> wrote: Hi Paul, You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here. I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible. As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC. I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following: 1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP) I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it) Regards On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com><mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbr an chc <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b>>onsulting.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__onsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=5KHnoAhrAjr7fAxFcnt_UZe1YtILpdAqVarvKqTo3pE&e=><http://onsulting.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__onsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=5KHnoAhrAjr7fAxFcnt_UZe1YtILpdAqVarvKqTo3pE&e=>>>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com><mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbra nc hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rose nz weig@redbranchco> nsulting.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=MWcLj9QiWa6FkG9XkRKeXbvFGGWMKuSdoJZOVx0uFBM&e=><http://nsulting.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nsulting.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=MWcLj9QiWa6FkG9XkRKeXbvFGGWMKuSdoJZOVx0uFBM&e=>>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:B ec ky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:ky.Burr@neustar.biz>%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>>>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavall i@ gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=>>>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>>> <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / +neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>> <http://www.neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=HrdlbmWrCO5JBFBy01CZkxzYffOEnj734nbsz6rmC3w&e=>> On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>> wrote: Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mai lt o:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=>%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=>> escribió: Kavouss, Becky responded to this yesterday: Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this. I expect she will follow up soon. Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP. I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday. If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it. Best, Brett On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: ka vouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:vouss.arasteh@gmail.com>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>><mailto :k avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>>> wrote: Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged): == Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountabil it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org<mailto:es@icann.org>>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cro ss -community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:greg sh atanipc@gmail.com<mailto:atanipc@gmail.com>%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>><mailto:gregsha t <mailto:gregshat%0b>>>>anipc@gmail.com<mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.ed u% 3cmailto:milton@gatech.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gatech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=SPAXWQC6Dsx9-zWUlTgefSw18mVTdfNEVkBp5qftNNY&e=>>><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<ma <mailto:milton@gatech.edu%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton@gatech.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gatech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=SPAXWQC6Dsx9-zWUlTgefSw18mVTdfNEVkBp5qftNNY&e=><http://gat<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gat&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=WEOI2s3x2bkzEcuI6sDmynpBYdCfQu9Gx1c8Dm9xmCA&e=> ech.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ech.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=q57UP-BUi36awfkk9v0_QmW_zo-iqc1g58fkIrTD4OM&e=>>>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cros s- com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun ta bility-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 cm ailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing I have a proposal for discussion. Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission. I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold. Just a thought - === Regards Jorge ________________________________ 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 http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=GtIfwGU7uMwS_Cpqc1KP7GG4gGXTy4XFz2ep6WZzvKU&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http -3 A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org-253chttps-3A_urldefense.proofpoint.com_v2_url-3Fu&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=Gtc6E6VHfgb_i0XKDZwjHaHm1RkAHvgH4oUQoopUHXc&e=> =h ttp-3A__> heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq> 8M o8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__-26gt-3B-26gt-3B.org-5F-26d-3Dcwigaq-26c-3Dmoptnlvtietedalc-5Flulrw-26r-3D62cjfoifzm&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=REtqw8XE73ZxbVu-e_HhGfX4ZGLz4PLhRG4i3BAn3uU&e=> 6X _GRlaq8Mo8T> jDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolh J2 mGN u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< ma ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>> ] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> ; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky. Bu rr@neustar.biz<mailto:rr@neustar.biz>%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>>><mailto:Becky.Burr <mailto:Becky.Burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><mailto:Becky .Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Burr@neustar.biz>>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Weill@afnic.fr>%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afnic.fr&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=Z8tDOMEnBfhmdWPrAzVwyG-OZ_TAZbVRCV4ezC9Uxyc&e=>>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math ieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli pe @sanchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=><http://anchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=>><mailto:leonfeli pe@sanchez.mx<mailto:pe@sanchez.mx>>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin. ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider @b akom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__akom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=5m1Wu4_QF6gCTq1iMMVb_273bS7EFLGYD9CyaejWu-E&e=>>> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bak om .ad <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bako m.ad%0b>>>>min.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__min.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=jjfmbIWBm7Ffx6QzdROvG_rTO66AgO3JjqjFneu7scI&e=><http://min.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__min.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=jjfmbIWBm7Ffx6QzdROvG_rTO66AgO3JjqjFneu7scI&e=>>>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations. Regards Jorge Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< ma ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>> ] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk><mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dmin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=saRH955v0czKVpdm6JaN9KQMEwt0QIaj_Ztce4Z8yCk&e=><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=IAeGfA5JxEo947Vu4e0to5nrOd03mNQnJzmDc4WrG6U&e=>>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bakom.admin.ch&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=u_vrHu5q3VDoLxmEdlEXBJ3qye2N0aq98rCkW39cKjM&e=>>>>> wrote: Dear all I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday. A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it. This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant. Regards Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountabil it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org<mailto:es@icann.org>>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cro ss -community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion: ³ Burr Proposal: ? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23. The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.² However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call. Best regards, Finn and Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto :j ukacz@erst.dk<mailto:ukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukac z@erst.dk<mailto:z@erst.dk><mailto:z@erst.dk>>> http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmB3s21IfuNbh13VrL_P3pm-s8gzWnm-3M6j6nI_348&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v 2/ url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk-253chttps-3A_urldefense.proofpoint&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=Ijs5G7Ftbj3C-WUg-8E5J-aeUiLlyHyrAA9dgrbn_kg&e=>. co m/v2/url> ?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__3a-5F-5Fwww.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=WEbCbAM7VuGbzjgvfUiwjCbGrx9N0Rf_XbVUUhaPeeY&e=>>&d =C wIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioS UB 1PW w WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= > MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountabil it y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a cc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil it y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou nc es@icann.org<mailto:es@icann.org>>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc ou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cro ss -community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr os s-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cros s- com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun ta bility-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 cm ailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus! 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) * Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><http://www.neus<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neus&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=2PUd-2B5kmyJjzfZM90Pim0LySYCYfR8ID6S63UrXus&e=> ta r.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=ENjjcG0Hicj2PD0T3Zsbg22ppEoqQxmwliklHtZlPSI&e=><http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz-253e-253chttp-3A_www.neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=iTpR0rMW7n5cpCjw_ksnW_E7ByuJeJSZk243T0P7V7c&e=>>> From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: ka vouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:vouss.arasteh@gmail.com>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>><mailto :k avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail. com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=UmPkKYwhHfx6pw_GQWWzAlA9kUvy2SRRKkqprAmO5BQ&e=>>>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro ss -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> , Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky. bu rr@neustar.biz<mailto:rr@neustar.biz>%3cmailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>>><mailto:becky.burr <mailto:becky.burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=><http://neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=rQRIrYHFr92nZagvPWY21acWkBCOVd7l7qpHjMxMuts&e=>><mailto:becky .burr@neustar.biz<mailto:burr@neustar.biz>>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Weill@afnic.fr>%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afnic.fr&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=Z8tDOMEnBfhmdWPrAzVwyG-OZ_TAZbVRCV4ezC9Uxyc&e=>>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math ieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=kiNCMtKfY_G6S-Qgf_Ze05oQGPlo7GeaNSrd6DUERI0&e=>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli pe @sanchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sanchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=AVzdOnk_czJnYtUhw89DbcYmfHS7uQHQ-p1BjUgW7PA&e=>>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=><http://anchez.mx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__anchez.mx&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=NHTGsZd_7Xs1knHZEjWWVoNCz9LNKxl-WD1PNGOj4s4&e=>><mailto:leonfeli pe@sanchez.mx<mailto:pe@sanchez.mx>>>> Subject: <no subject> Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings, I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community. We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11 We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together. However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection. We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability. Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed . The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical 1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it. Package Deal 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) · Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; · Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and · Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cros s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 cm ailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e = <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ ma ilm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lm%0b>>>>a n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIE Te DAL C _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7- 2H ozb e OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X- wC 7M& e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cros s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab il ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 cm ailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e = _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cros s- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun ta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m ai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET eD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w C7 M&e = _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross -C omm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Account ab ility-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma il man _ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD AL C_l U Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hoz be OZX Y oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e= _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org><mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmunity@icann.org<mailto:mmunity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-C ommunity@icann.org<mailto:ommunity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> <GNSO Council Response to CCWG-Accountability - FINAL - 22 January 2016.pdf> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=2VntNON2N-hgYmty4_4QIqVgiZeRrHKjrgphT3EAyW4&s=fcfdcYu9QNPfDJOD8vtvJdZa5Rd7sqW87pw849B10HU&e=> **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************
Dear Co-Chairs, Members, Participants and Staff, Attached please find the proposed language to be included in the Final Proposal on indemnification and advancement of expenses as discussed on the call yesterday. This language reflects input from ICANN Legal and Jones Day, but we understand that it has not been reviewed by the Board. Kind regards, Holly and Rosemary HOLLY J. GREGORY Partner and Co-Chair Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Group Sidley Austin LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com/> [http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png]<http://www.sidley.com/> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************
Hello All,
Attached please find the proposed language to be included in the Final Proposal on indemnification and advancement of expenses as discussed on the call yesterday. This language reflects input from ICANN Legal and Jones Day, but we understand that it has not been reviewed by the Board.
The Board does not have any objection to the inclusion of text on the advancement of expenses in the indemnification section. Regards, Bruce Tonkin ICANN Board Liaison to the CCWG
This is good news. Thank you, Bruce! Thomas --- rickert.net
Am 12.02.2016 um 11:13 schrieb Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>:
Hello All,
Attached please find the proposed language to be included in the Final Proposal on indemnification and advancement of expenses as discussed on the call yesterday. This language reflects input from ICANN Legal and Jones Day, but we understand that it has not been reviewed by the Board.
The Board does not have any objection to the inclusion of text on the advancement of expenses in the indemnification section.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
ICANN Board Liaison to the CCWG _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
For the convenience of counsel, I paste the proposal below, since any analysis needs to start with the words of the proposal under consideration. But the heart of the proposal is quite simple: "The GAC may not ... participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise of a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice." Unpacking this sentence tends to answer many of the questions posed by Rafael. The scope of the carve-out is defined in the last few words -- it applies only where the "purpose of [the community power is] challenging or blocking the Board's implementation of GAC advice." The overlap between this scope and the two broad categories in Rafael's email is really quite limited. Rafael's cases are variations on the same question, which can be combined as follows: Would the GAC be able to participate fully in the decision-making of the community mechanism on any Board decision on policy or implementation of (i) new gTLDs or (ii) delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs, which would also take into consideration standing Advice from the GAC on such issues? Given the scope of the carve-out, it is clear to me that the answer to the question above is "Yes, unless the purpose of the community mechanism was to challenge or block the Board's implementation of GAC advice." The fact that Board decisions on new gTLDs and (del/redel of) ccTLDs may "take into consideration" standing GAC Advice does not make every Board decision on gTLDs and ccTLDs an implementation of GAC advice. More to the point, a challenge to a Board decision on gTLDs or ccTLDs is not a challenge to GAC standing advice, unless the challenge specifically seeks to bar the GAC advice. The test is easy -- after the challenge, will the GAC advice still stand or will it be struck down? Many of the remaining questions posed by Rafael are implementation-level questions, which really do not have a strictly "legal" answer. These may require decisions during implementation, which both the CCWG and its counsel can provide input on at the proper time, based on existing ICANN processes and the dispute resolution processes proposed in our work. As such, I would not be surprised if our counsel cannot offer definitive responses to these questions -- and that should not be taken as an issue in moving forward. It's simply the nature of the questions. I look forward to our discussion in a few hours. Greg 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: *The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge such Board decisions.* · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: *The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. * 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) - Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; - Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and - Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for *final consideration* (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Dear Rosemary and Holly, This is to certify the review of the questions in the e-mail below. We do know this is extremely short notice, but it would be great if the answers could inform our discussion on this very topic next Monday, February 8th, 12.00 UTC. We do appreciate that time is too short for a written memo, but maybe one of you or team could offer initial answers during the call.
I hope to be correct in assuming that you have seen the compromise proposal under consideration with input primarily from Kavouss and Becky. Also, you may find Rafael's previous questions and the answers offered by Becky informative. Should these not be known, please send a note to staff so they can forward them to you.
Thank you very much.
Kind regards, Thomas
--- rickert.net
Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail:
*Von:* "Perez Galindo, Rafael" <RPEREZGA@minetur.es> *Datum:* 6. Februar 2016 um 11:32:55 MEZ *An:* James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, "kdrazek@verisign.com" < kdrazek@verisign.com> *Kopie:* "thomas@rickert.net" <thomas@rickert.net>, " accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Betreff:* *RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues*
Dear Co-chairs,
Det me draw your attention to the latest developments in the discussions regarding Rec 11 (former ST 18), namely the carve-out system put forward by Becky and backed by the GNSO.
While thanking Becky for this proposal, I believe we can all agree to acknowledge that the carve-out is not a mere adjustment, nor a tweak to complete or shape a package of measures, but it constitutes a major essential change, for it actually regulates the functioning of the EC with regards to the GAC, and could raise important political and legal concerns.
Hence, and prior to any possible endorsement, I kindly ask that a detailed legal analisys of the proposed text be commissioned to the Legal assistance by the Co-Chairs:
- who would decide whether the carve-out is applicable to a certain issue to be subject to a community decision
- according to what standard would that decision be taken? For instance: is it enough if Board mentions GAC Advice in its rationale as a source for its decision. Or would a substantial test be applied, i.e. checked whether the Board decision follows GAC Advice? In the latter case, would the carve-out also apply if the GAC Advice is only partially followed?
- what means of redress would be available for any party not in agreement with such a decision?
- would the GAC, according to this wording, be able to participate fully in the decision-making of the community mechanism on the following topics?:
1. Any Board decision on policies or implementation of delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs, which would be taken. having regard, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs)
2. Any Board decision on policy or implementation of new gTLDs, which would also take into consideration, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on new gTLDs)
Thank you and best regards
Rafael
________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of James Gannon [james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: 05 February 2016 21:15 To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; kdrazek@verisign.com Cc: thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Jorge, I think at this point the GAC needs to go back and consider the proposition that is on the table the the GNSO appears to be in a position to support.
We do not have the timelines available to us to continue to argue over this, the GNSO has come to rough support on a position now, I feel its time for the GAC to go back to its own processes with this proposition to evaluate it. We are all aware of the GACs wants in this, but that does not mean that the GNSO community will agree to them as we have laid out in our comments to the 3rd Draft proposal.
I feel that if we keep going around in circles over what the GNSO and GAC are potentially able to negotiate we will never end this process, and I think we all want to attempt to bring this to a close ASAP. I hope that the GAC can continue to show its flexibility and ability to compromise and work together with the broad community on this, no-one is setting out to disenfranchise any stakeholder group here, we are all trying to make this the least bad solution that we can all agree on. On this point no-one is winning and no-one is losing.
-James
On 05/02/2016, 8:03 p.m., " accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" < accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Keith
Thank you very much for this full text of the gnso input.
I'm aware if the concerns expressed by the gnso, and as I have said several times, I consider them legitimate and relevant, although we may have different opinions on their degree of impact or the means to address them.
At the same time we all know that the GAC came a long way to reach a consensus input on the then ST18, now rec11. And such difficulties were based on concerns from a relevant number of governments whose concerns I feel we should also consider legitimate and worth consideration.
Rec11 was then based on a compromise, which still raised concerns from sectors of the gnso and from a number of governments.
I think the solution is not to privilege parts of the community in reaching a solution.
We need to take on board as many stakeholders and constituencies as possible.
In the last weeks we agreed, we all agreed, to take up important points made by the gnso on rec11: clarify that the Board has no new obligations, the obligation of a clear rationale, the clarification that Board decisions always have to be consistent with Bylaws, irrespective of the source of the advice on which such a decision is based.
On rec10 we also made additions to address concerns expressed around the accountability review of the GAC.
And again on rec11 -as I also said- I felt that Becky's initial proposal (at least as some of us understood it) was one possible means. And I think that if we narrow it down to the community IRP it could work.
But to word it in such broad terms as it is now has the effect I have repeatedly described. Our lawyers could analyze the scooe of such an exception and advise us.
If we agree that the GAC is a legitimate participant in the community mechanism, as we habe repeatedly and consistently agreed, then we cannot favour an overbroad carve-out, because the GAC would not be able to participate on an equal footing in the community mechanism.
In such case we need to clarify and word the carve-out in such terms that it is clear that we just want a very narrow carve-out and that this will not prevent the GAC from normally participating in the community mechanism, with a few exceptions.
If the intention is to have a broad carve-out, then we would not be able to agree.
But I hope that we are in the first case.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Thanks Jorge,
A majority of the GNSO's constituent groups view the combination of Rec-1, Rec-10 and Rec-11 as "interlinked." The majority of GNSO groups (sufficient to reject) view ANY change of Board voting threshold for GAC consensus advice to be highly problematic. The GNSO's willingness to consider and accept Kavouss' suggested compromise of 60% is entirely dependent upon the further clarifications suggested by Becky in the Arasteh/Burr proposal.
I've attached the GNSO Council comments, which are a summary of the GNSO groups comments, for your further review. Here are the relevant texts:
From the GNSO Comments on Rec-1:
"Some in the GNSO have identified a clear link with Recommendations #10 & #11 and are of the view that the current balance between SO/ACs needs to be preserved in the Empowered Community, especially with respect to the GAC." [This means the status quo should be maintained -- the GAC should remain advisory and not have a decisional role.]
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-10:
"There are some concerns within the GNSO with the top down nature of accountability reviews, and the exemption of the GAC from this community requirement. It is also troubling that the GAC, further empowered if Recommendations #1 and #11 are adopted, would be exempted from the same periodic reviews as the other SO/ACs. All participants in the Community Mechanism should be subject to equivalent accountability reviews."
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-11:
"There is broad opposition to this recommendation as written. Most SG/Cs do not support the proposal to raise the threshold for a Board vote to reject GAC advice. All expressed serious concerns over the
lack of specificity in the recommendation in relation to the requirements for GAC advice (such as the provision of rationale) and the possibility that this recommendation, if adopted, could unduly change the nature of the Board-GAC relationship and/or the position of the GAC vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs also believe that any CCWG recommendation on this topic should retain the current flexibility in the Bylaws where the Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in order to reject GAC advice."
"IPC, NCSG and the Registrars SG expressly objected to changing and specifying the threshold for Board action; the Registries SG and ISPCP Constituency did not object expressly but highlighted significant concerns about the implications of such a change. The Registries SG stated it was unlikely to support the 2/3 threshold for Board action unless three additional requirements (provision of a rationale, consistency with ICANN bylaws and within GAC scope, and defined consensus) applied to such GAC Advice. While BC and NPOC supported the change, both nevertheless also noted concerns over the implications, with the BC's support expressly conditioned upon certain qualifications being made to the proposal."
Regards,
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>]
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 2:16 PM
To: Drazek, Keith
Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements?
The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right?
Best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Dear Jorge,
Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations.
The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it.
If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute.
Regards,
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>]
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM
To: Drazek, Keith
Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
and 11 issues
Dear Keith
This is an interesting question.
But what we have on the table is the third draft report.
This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a
higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the
consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some
gnso members (who have proposed this)
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com< mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <kdrazek@verisign.com>>>:
We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object?
Regards,
Keith
From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es <RPEREZGA@minetur.es>]
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM
To: James M. Bladel;
Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>;
Drazek, Keith
Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>>;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c
ommunity@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
and 11 issues
It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either.
Best
Rafael
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.
-------- Original message --------
From: "James M. Bladel"
Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00)
To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>,
kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <kdrazek@verisign.com>>
Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>>,
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c
ommunity@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
and 11 issues
Hello Jorge -
Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC?
Thanks-
J.
On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%20on%0bbehalf%20of% 20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>"
<accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%20on%20behalf%20of% 0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a
discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and
little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith
<kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <kdrazek@verisign.com>< mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <kdrazek@verisign.com>%3cmailto:kdrazek@ verisign.com>>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives
the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold
to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates
appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way
forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11.
Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards,
Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji
<seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com><mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-).
While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting
right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the
community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and
that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same
level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some
extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain
situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not
give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making
power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto
GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of
the
following:
1. Rejected by board
2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by
an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission.
3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of
ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome
of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground
and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not
see
it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig"
<paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbr
an
chc
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> %3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b>>onsulting.com< http://onsulting.com>>> wrote:
Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is
the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a
real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbra
nc
hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>%3cmailto:paul.rose
nz
weig@redbranchco>
nsulting.com<http://nsulting.com>>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>>
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message-----
From: Burr, Becky
[mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>< mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:B
ec ky.Burr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>]
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM
To: Olga Cavalli
<olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavall
i@ gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>>;
Schaefer, Brett
<Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:
Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>>
Cc:
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>< mailto:thomas@rickert.n <thomas@rickert.n>
et
%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net <thomas@rickert.net>< mailto:thomas@rickert.n <thomas@rickert.n>
et
%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross
-c
omm
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross
-c
omm
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org <unity@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
and
11
issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been
that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an
exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note
Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further
restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy
General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932 <%2B1.202.533.2932>> Mobile:
+1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367 <%2B1.202.352.6367>> /
+neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli"
<olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <olgacavalli@gmail.com>%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Brett
there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett
<Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mai
lt
o:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>
escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table
when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to
Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email
demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the
GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent,
but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of
Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve
this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have
arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:
ka
vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto
:k
avo
<mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com <uss.arasteh@gmail.com>%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie
As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have
serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in
the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and
send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current
text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED
TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion.
As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be
more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr
revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial
text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people.
Awaiting your action , I remain
Regards
Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10,
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a>
dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom
.admin.ch>>>>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch
<mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>< mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to
(highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil
it
y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3cmailto:
accountability-c>
ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a
cc
oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org <ross-community-bounces@icann.org>%3e%3cmailto:accountabil
it
y-cr%3cmailto:accoun>
tability-cr>
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.
or
g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org <oss-community-bounces@icann.org> %3cmailto:oss-community-bou
nc
es@icann.org>>>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:acc
ou
nta
bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro
ss
-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr
os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky
Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05
An: Greg Shatan
<gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:greg
sh
atanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregsha
t
<mailto:gregshat%0b>>>>anipc@gmail.com<mailto:anipc@gmail.com <anipc@gmail.com>><mailto:
gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller,
Milton L
<milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu <milton@gatech.edu>< mailto:milton@gatech.ed <milton@gatech.ed>
u% 3cmailto:milton@gatech.edu>>< <milton@gatech.edu>
...
[Message clipped] _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
To refine my thinking just a bit more: of course, the underlying GAC Advice isn't being challenged, only the Board implementation of it. But the purpose of the challenge must be to keep the Board from implementing GAC Advice. Greg On Monday, February 8, 2016, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
For the convenience of counsel, I paste the proposal below, since any analysis needs to start with the words of the proposal under consideration.
But the heart of the proposal is quite simple: "The GAC may not ... participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise of a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice." Unpacking this sentence tends to answer many of the questions posed by Rafael.
The scope of the carve-out is defined in the last few words -- it applies only where the "purpose of [the community power is] challenging or blocking the Board's implementation of GAC advice."
The overlap between this scope and the two broad categories in Rafael's email is really quite limited. Rafael's cases are variations on the same question, which can be combined as follows:
Would the GAC be able to participate fully in the decision-making of the community mechanism on any Board decision on policy or implementation of (i) new gTLDs or (ii) delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs, which would also take into consideration standing Advice from the GAC on such issues?
Given the scope of the carve-out, it is clear to me that the answer to the question above is "Yes, unless the purpose of the community mechanism was to challenge or block the Board's implementation of GAC advice."
The fact that Board decisions on new gTLDs and (del/redel of) ccTLDs may "take into consideration" standing GAC Advice does not make every Board decision on gTLDs and ccTLDs an implementation of GAC advice. More to the point, a challenge to a Board decision on gTLDs or ccTLDs is not a challenge to GAC standing advice, unless the challenge specifically seeks to bar the GAC advice. The test is easy -- after the challenge, will the GAC advice still stand or will it be struck down?
Many of the remaining questions posed by Rafael are implementation-level questions, which really do not have a strictly "legal" answer. These may require decisions during implementation, which both the CCWG and its counsel can provide input on at the proper time, based on existing ICANN processes and the dispute resolution processes proposed in our work. As such, I would not be surprised if our counsel cannot offer definitive responses to these questions -- and that should not be taken as an issue in moving forward. It's simply the nature of the questions.
I look forward to our discussion in a few hours.
Greg
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
*The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge such Board decisions.*
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
*The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. *
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
- Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; - Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and - Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for *final consideration* (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Dear Rosemary and Holly, This is to certify the review of the questions in the e-mail below. We do know this is extremely short notice, but it would be great if the answers could inform our discussion on this very topic next Monday, February 8th, 12.00 UTC. We do appreciate that time is too short for a written memo, but maybe one of you or team could offer initial answers during the call.
I hope to be correct in assuming that you have seen the compromise proposal under consideration with input primarily from Kavouss and Becky. Also, you may find Rafael's previous questions and the answers offered by Becky informative. Should these not be known, please send a note to staff so they can forward them to you.
Thank you very much.
Kind regards, Thomas
--- rickert.net
Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail:
*Von:* "Perez Galindo, Rafael" <RPEREZGA@minetur.es> *Datum:* 6. Februar 2016 um 11:32:55 MEZ *An:* James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, "kdrazek@verisign.com" < kdrazek@verisign.com> *Kopie:* "thomas@rickert.net" <thomas@rickert.net>, " accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Betreff:* *RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues*
Dear Co-chairs,
Det me draw your attention to the latest developments in the discussions regarding Rec 11 (former ST 18), namely the carve-out system put forward by Becky and backed by the GNSO.
While thanking Becky for this proposal, I believe we can all agree to acknowledge that the carve-out is not a mere adjustment, nor a tweak to complete or shape a package of measures, but it constitutes a major essential change, for it actually regulates the functioning of the EC with regards to the GAC, and could raise important political and legal concerns.
Hence, and prior to any possible endorsement, I kindly ask that a detailed legal analisys of the proposed text be commissioned to the Legal assistance by the Co-Chairs:
- who would decide whether the carve-out is applicable to a certain issue to be subject to a community decision
- according to what standard would that decision be taken? For instance: is it enough if Board mentions GAC Advice in its rationale as a source for its decision. Or would a substantial test be applied, i.e. checked whether the Board decision follows GAC Advice? In the latter case, would the carve-out also apply if the GAC Advice is only partially followed?
- what means of redress would be available for any party not in agreement with such a decision?
- would the GAC, according to this wording, be able to participate fully in the decision-making of the community mechanism on the following topics?:
1. Any Board decision on policies or implementation of delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs, which would be taken. having regard, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs)
2. Any Board decision on policy or implementation of new gTLDs, which would also take into consideration, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on new gTLDs)
Thank you and best regards
Rafael
________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of James Gannon [james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: 05 February 2016 21:15 To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; kdrazek@verisign.com Cc: thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Jorge, I think at this point the GAC needs to go back and consider the proposition that is on the table the the GNSO appears to be in a position to support.
We do not have the timelines available to us to continue to argue over this, the GNSO has come to rough support on a position now, I feel its time for the GAC to go back to its own processes with this proposition to evaluate it. We are all aware of the GACs wants in this, but that does not mean that the GNSO community will agree to them as we have laid out in our comments to the 3rd Draft proposal.
I feel that if we keep going around in circles over what the GNSO and GAC are potentially able to negotiate we will never end this process, and I think we all want to attempt to bring this to a close ASAP. I hope that the GAC can continue to show its flexibility and ability to compromise and work together with the broad community on this, no-one is setting out to disenfranchise any stakeholder group here, we are all trying to make this the least bad solution that we can all agree on. On this point no-one is winning and no-one is losing.
-James
On 05/02/2016, 8:03 p.m., " accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" < accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Keith
Thank you very much for this full text of the gnso input.
I'm aware if the concerns expressed by the gnso, and as I have said several times, I consider them legitimate and relevant, although we may have different opinions on their degree of impact or the means to address them.
At the same time we all know that the GAC came a long way to reach a consensus input on the then ST18, now rec11. And such difficulties were based on concerns from a relevant number of governments whose concerns I feel we should also consider legitimate and worth consideration.
Rec11 was then based on a compromise, which still raised concerns from sectors of the gnso and from a number of governments.
I think the solution is not to privilege parts of the community in reaching a solution.
We need to take on board as many stakeholders and constituencies as possible.
In the last weeks we agreed, we all agreed, to take up important points made by the gnso on rec11: clarify that the Board has no new obligations, the obligation of a clear rationale, the clarification that Board decisions always have to be consistent with Bylaws, irrespective of the source of the advice on which such a decision is based.
On rec10 we also made additions to address concerns expressed around the accountability review of the GAC.
And again on rec11 -as I also said- I felt that Becky's initial proposal (at least as some of us understood it) was one possible means. And I think that if we narrow it down to the community IRP it could work.
But to word it in such broad terms as it is now has the effect I have repeatedly described. Our lawyers could analyze the scooe of such an exception and advise us.
If we agree that the GAC is a legitimate participant in the community mechanism, as we habe repeatedly and consistently agreed, then we cannot favour an overbroad carve-out, because the GAC would not be able to participate on an equal footing in the community mechanism.
In such case we need to clarify and word the carve-out in such terms that it is clear that we just want a very narrow carve-out and that this will not prevent the GAC from normally participating in the community mechanism, with a few exceptions.
If the intention is to have a broad carve-out, then we would not be able to agree.
But I hope that we are in the first case.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Thanks Jorge,
A majority of the GNSO's constituent groups view the combination of Rec-1, Rec-10 and Rec-11 as "interlinked." The majority of GNSO groups (sufficient to reject) view ANY change of Board voting threshold for GAC consensus advice to be highly problematic. The GNSO's willingness to consider and accept Kavouss' suggested compromise of 60% is entirely dependent upon the further clarifications suggested by Becky in the Arasteh/Burr proposal.
I've attached the GNSO Council comments, which are a summary of the GNSO groups comments, for your further review. Here are the relevant texts:
From the GNSO Comments on Rec-1:
"Some in the GNSO have identified a clear link with Recommendations #10 & #11 and are of the view that the current balance between SO/ACs needs to be preserved in the Empowered Community, especially with respect to the GAC." [This means the status quo should be maintained -- the GAC should remain advisory and not have a decisional role.]
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-10:
"There are some concerns within the GNSO with the top down nature of accountability reviews, and the exemption of the GAC from this community requirement. It is also troubling that the GAC, further empowered if Recommendations #1 and #11 are adopted, would be exempted from the same periodic reviews as the other SO/ACs. All participants in the Community Mechanism should be subject to equivalent accountability reviews."
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-11:
"There is broad opposition to this recommendation as written. Most SG/Cs do not support the proposal to raise the threshold for a Board vote to reject GAC advice. All expressed serious concerns over the
lack of specificity in the recommendation in relation to the requirements for GAC advice (such as the provision of rationale) and the possibility that this recommendation, if adopted, could unduly change the nature of the Board-GAC relationship and/or the position of the GAC vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs also believe that any CCWG recommendation on this topic should retain the current flexibility in the Bylaws where the Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in order to reject GAC advice."
"IPC, NCSG and the Registrars SG expressly objected to changing and specifying the threshold for Board action; the Registries SG and ISPCP Constituency did not object expressly but highlighted significant concerns about the implications of such a change. The Registries SG stated it was unlikely to support the 2/3 threshold for Board action unless three additional requirements (provision of a rationale, consistency with ICANN bylaws and within GAC scope, and defined consensus) applied to such GAC Advice. While BC and NPOC supported the change, both nevertheless also noted concerns over the implications, with the BC's support expressly conditioned upon certain qualifications being made to the proposal."
Regards,
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch]
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 2:16 PM
To: Drazek, Keith
Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements?
The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right?
Best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Dear Jorge,
Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations.
The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it.
If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute.
Regards,
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch]
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM
To: Drazek, Keith
Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
and 11 issues
Dear Keith
This is an interesting question.
But what we have on the table is the third draft report.
This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a
higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the
consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some
gnso members (who have proposed this)
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com< mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object?
Regards,
Keith
From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es]
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM
To: James M. Bladel;
Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>;
Drazek, Keith
Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c
ommunity@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
and 11 issues
It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either.
Best
Rafael
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.
-------- Original message --------
From: "James M. Bladel"
Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00)
To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>,
kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>
Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>,
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c
ommunity@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
and 11 issues
Hello Jorge -
Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC?
Thanks-
J.
On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org %20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>"
<accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch< mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org %20on%20behalf%20of%0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a
discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and
little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith
<kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com< mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com%3cmailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives
the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold
to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates
appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way
forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11.
Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards,
Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji
<seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com< mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-).
While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting
right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the
community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and
that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same
level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some
extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain
situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not
give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making
power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto
GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of
the
following:
1. Rejected by board
2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by
an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission.
3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of
ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome
of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground
and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not
see
it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig"
<paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbr
an
chc
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com %3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b>>onsulting.com< http://onsulting.com>>> wrote:
Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is
the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a
real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbra
nc
hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rose
nz
weig@redbranchco>
nsulting.com<http://nsulting.com>>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message-----
From: Burr, Becky
[mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:B
ec ky.Burr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>]
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM
To: Olga Cavalli
<olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavall
i@ gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>>;
Schaefer, Brett
<Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:
Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>>
Cc:
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n
et
%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n
et
%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross
-c
omm
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross
-c
omm
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili
ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
and
11
issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been
that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an
exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s
implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note
Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further
restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy
General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile:
+1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> /
+neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli"
<olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com< mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Brett
there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett
<Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mai
lt
o:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>
escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table
when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to
Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email
demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the
GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent,
but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of
Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve
this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have
arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:
ka
vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto
:k
avo
<mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie
As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have
serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in
the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and
send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current
text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED
TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion.
As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be
more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr
revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial
text the concept if wh
Jorge, Rec. 1 had "limited support and some opposition" in the GNSO feedback document. Rec. 2 had "general support", but it is the interplay between 1, 2 and 11 that is at issue, not merely a position on any one Rec. Greg On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 2:15 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Keith
I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements?
The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right?
Best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Dear Jorge,
Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations.
The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it.
If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute.
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
This is an interesting question.
But what we have on the table is the third draft report.
This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some gnso members (who have proposed this)
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object?
Regards, Keith
From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM To: James M. Bladel; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; Drazek, Keith Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either.
Best Rafael
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.
-------- Original message -------- From: "James M. Bladel" Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00) To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Hello Jorge -
Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC?
Thanks-
J.
On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org% 20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org% 20on%20behalf%20of%0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto: kdrazek@verisign.com%3cmailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto: seun.ojedeji@gmail.com%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbran chc <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com %3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b>>onsulting.com< http://onsulting.com>>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranc hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rosenz weig@redbranchco> nsulting.com<http://nsulting.com>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Bec ky.Burr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@ gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>> <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org %3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto: unity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org %3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto: unity@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / +neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto: olgacavalli@gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailt o:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:ka vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto:k avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com% 3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch% 3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch% 3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabilit y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:acc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabilit y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bounc es@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cros s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregsh atanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshat <mailto:gregshat%0b>>>>anipc@gmail.com<mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu% 3cmailto:milton@gatech.edu>><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<ma <mailto:milton@gatech.edu%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton@gatech.edu< http://gatech.edu>>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross- com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta bility-cross-com> munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountabil ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3cm ailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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
http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3 A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=h ttp-3A__> heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8M o8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X _GRlaq8Mo8T> jDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2 mGN u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<ma ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch% 3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk
<jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk ; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org %3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto: accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org %3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org %3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto: accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org %3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Bu rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:Becky.Burr <mailto:Becky.Burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto: Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto: Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto: leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin. ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@b akom.admin.ch>> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom .ad <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch% 3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.ad%0b>>>>min.ch<http://min.ch>>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch% 3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch% 3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<ma ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch% 3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk
<jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.dk ; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org %3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto: accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org %3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org %3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto: accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org %3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch% 3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch% 3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabilit y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:acc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabilit y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bounc es@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cros s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org %3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto: accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org %3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:j ukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukac z@erst.dk<mailto:z@erst.dk>>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/ url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.co m/v2/url> ?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d=C wIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB 1PW w WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabilit y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:acc oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabilit y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.or g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bounc es@icann.org>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accou nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cros s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross- com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta bility-cross-com> munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountabil ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3cm ailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz><http://www.neusta r.biz<http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz>>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:ka vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto:k avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com% 3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org %3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto: accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org %3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.bu rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:becky.burr <mailto:becky.burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto: becky.burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto: Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto: leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountabil ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3cm ailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7 M&e =
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma ilm < https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm%0b a n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETe DAL C _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2H ozb e OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC 7M& e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountabil ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3cm ailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7 M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7 M&e =
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C omm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountab ility-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail man _ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL C_l U Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe OZX Y oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountabi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountabi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountabi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accountabi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co mmunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto: Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Greg Jorge knows that. He has read the gNSO response. He is just trying to muddy the waters. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 2:55 PM To: <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Jorge, Rec. 1 had "limited support and some opposition" in the GNSO feedback document. Rec. 2 had "general support", but it is the interplay between 1, 2 and 11 that is at issue, not merely a position on any one Rec. Greg On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 2:15 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > wrote: Dear Keith I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements? The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right? Best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> >:
Dear Jorge,
Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations.
The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it.
If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute.
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> ] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es <mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es> ; jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> ; thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> ; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
This is an interesting question.
But what we have on the table is the third draft report.
This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some gnso members (who have proposed this)
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> >>:
We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object?
Regards, Keith
From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es <mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es> ] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM To: James M. Bladel; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >; Drazek, Keith Cc: thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either.
Best Rafael
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.
-------- Original message -------- From: "James M. Bladel" Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00) To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >, kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> > Cc: thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >, accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Hello Jorge -
Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC?
Thanks-
J.
On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> %20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:20on%250bbehalf%2520of%2520Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> %20on%20behalf%20of%0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:20on%2520behalf%2520of%250bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> %3cmailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:3cmailto%3Akdrazek@verisign.com> >>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> %3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:3cmailto%3Aseun.ojedeji@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbran <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbran> chc <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> %3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b>>onsulting.com <http://onsulting.com> <http://onsulting.com>>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranc <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranc> hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> %3cmailto:paul.rosenz weig@redbranchco> nsulting.com <http://nsulting.com> <http://nsulting.com>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> <mailto:Bec <mailto:Bec> ky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:ky.Burr@neustar.biz> %3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:3cmailto%3ABecky.Burr@neustar.biz> >>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com> <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com> <mailto:olgacavalli@ <mailto:olgacavalli@> gmail.com <http://gmail.com> %3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <mailto:3cmailto%3Aolgacavalli@gmail.com> >>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> <mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> %3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:3cmailto%3ABrett.Schaefer@heritage.org> >>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:3cmailto%3Athomas@rickert.net> >>> <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:3cmailto%3Athomas@rickert.net> >>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-c <mailto:accountability-cross-c> omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> %3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org> <mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org> >>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-c <mailto:accountability-cross-c> omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> %3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org> <mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org> >>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 <tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> <tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / +neustar.biz <http://neustar.biz> <http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com> <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com> <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com> %3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com <mailto:3cmailto%3Aolgacavalli@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> <mailt o:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:o%3ABrett.Schaefer@heritage.org> %3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:3cmailto%3ABrett.Schaefer@heritage.org> >>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:ka <mailto:ka> vouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:vouss.arasteh@gmail.com> %3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:3cmailto%3Akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >><mailto:k <mailto:k> avo <mailto:kavo%0b <mailto:kavo%250b> >>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com> %3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:3cmailto%3Akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:3cmailto%3AJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >><mailto: <mailto:%0b> <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:3cmailto%3AJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:3cmailto%3AJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >><mailto: <mailto:%0b> <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:3cmailto%3AJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:accountabilit <mailto:accountabilit> y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> %3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org> ><mailto:accountability-cr <mailto:accountability-cr> <mailto:acc <mailto:acc> oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountabilit y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.or <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.or> g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org> %3cmailto:oss-community-bounc es@icann.org <mailto:es@icann.org> >>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:accou <mailto:accou> nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> ><mailto:accountability-cross <mailto:accountability-cross> -community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:community-bounces@icann.org> %3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cros s-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:s-community-bounces@icann.org> %3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregsh <mailto:gregsh> atanipc@gmail.com <mailto:atanipc@gmail.com> %3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:3cmailto%3Agregshatanipc@gmail.com> >><mailto:gregshat <mailto:gregshat> <mailto:gregshat%0b <mailto:gregshat%250b> >>>>anipc@gmail.com <mailto:anipc@gmail.com> <mailto:anipc@gmail.com <mailto:anipc@gmail.com> ><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu> <mailto:milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu> <mailto:milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu> % 3cmailto:milton@gatech.edu <mailto:3cmailto%3Amilton@gatech.edu> >><mailto:milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu> <ma <mailto:milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu> %3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton@gatech.edu <mailto:ilto%3Amilton@gatech.edu> <http://gatech.edu>>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross- <mailto:accountability-cross-> com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> %3cmailto:accounta bility-cross-com> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> ><mailto:accountability-cross-comm <mailto:accountability-cross-comm> <mailto:accountabil <mailto:accountabil> ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3cm ailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org> <mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org> ><mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org> >> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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
http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3 A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=h <http://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=h> ttp-3A__> heritage http:// <http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8M> >>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8M o8T<http://%3e%3e.org_ <http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X%0b> &d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X _GRlaq8Mo8T> jDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2 mGN u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <ma ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:ilto%3Akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> %3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:3cmailto%3Akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:3cmailto%3AJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >><mailto: <mailto:%0b> <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:3cmailto%3AJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> %3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> >><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <mailto:juka <mailto:juka> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> %3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk <mailto:cz@erst.dk> <mailto:cz@erst.dk <mailto:cz@erst.dk> >>>> <jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> %3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> >><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <mailto:juka <mailto:juka> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> %3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk <mailto:cz@erst.dk> <mailto:cz@erst.dk <mailto:cz@erst.dk> >>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross <mailto:accountability-cross> -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> %3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org> ><mailto:accountability-cross-com <mailto:accountability-cross-com> <mailto:accountability <mailto:accountability> <mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> <mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> ><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> >>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross <mailto:accountability-cross> -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> %3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org> ><mailto:accountability-cross-com <mailto:accountability-cross-com> <mailto:accountability <mailto:accountability> <mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> <mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> ><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> >>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> <mailto:Becky.Bu <mailto:Becky.Bu> rr@neustar.biz <mailto:rr@neustar.biz> %3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:3cmailto%3ABecky.Burr@neustar.biz> >><mailto:Becky.Burr <mailto:Becky.Burr> <mailto:Becky.Burr%0b <mailto:Becky.Burr%250b> >>>>@neustar.biz <http://neustar.biz> <http://neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> >>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.n <mailto:thomas@rickert.n> et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:et%253cmailto%3Athomas@rickert.net> >><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> %0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> <mailto:Mathieu <mailto:Mathieu> . Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Weill@afnic.fr> %3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:3cmailto%3AMathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> >><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We> <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b <mailto:Mathieu.We%250b> >>>>ill@afnic.fr <mailto:ill@afnic.fr> <mailto:ill@afnic.fr <mailto:ill@afnic.fr> ><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> >>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> <mailto:leonfelipe <mailto:leonfelipe> @sanchez.mx <http://sanchez.mx> %3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:3cmailto%3Aleonfelipe@sanchez.mx> >><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s> <mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s> %0b>>>>anchez.mx <http://anchez.mx> <http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> >>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin> . ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@b akom.admin.ch <http://akom.admin.ch> >> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom> .ad <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.ad <mailto:3cmailto%3AThomas.Schneider@bakom.ad> %0b>>>>min.ch <http://min.ch> <http://min.ch>>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:3cmailto%3AJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >><mailto: <mailto:%0b> <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:3cmailto%3AJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:3cmailto%3AJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >><mailto: <mailto:%0b> <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:3cmailto%3AJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <ma ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:ilto%3Akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> %3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:3cmailto%3Akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:3cmailto%3AJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >><mailto: <mailto:%0b> <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:3cmailto%3AJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> %3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> >><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <mailto:juka <mailto:juka> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> %3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk <mailto:cz@erst.dk> <mailto:cz@erst.dk <mailto:cz@erst.dk> >>>> <jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> %3cmailto: jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> >><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <mailto:juka <mailto:juka> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> %3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk <mailto:cz@erst.dk> <mailto:cz@erst.dk <mailto:cz@erst.dk> >>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross <mailto:accountability-cross> -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> %3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org> ><mailto:accountability-cross-com <mailto:accountability-cross-com> <mailto:accountability <mailto:accountability> <mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> <mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> ><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> >>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross <mailto:accountability-cross> -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> %3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org> ><mailto:accountability-cross-com <mailto:accountability-cross-com> <mailto:accountability <mailto:accountability> <mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> <mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> ><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> >>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:3cmailto%3AJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >><mailto: <mailto:%0b> <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:3cmailto%3AJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:3cmailto%3AJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >><mailto: <mailto:%0b> <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> %3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:3cmailto%3AJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >>>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:accountabilit <mailto:accountabilit> y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> %3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org> ><mailto:accountability-cr <mailto:accountability-cr> <mailto:acc <mailto:acc> oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountabilit y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.or <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.or> g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org> %3cmailto:oss-community-bounc es@icann.org <mailto:es@icann.org> >>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:accou <mailto:accou> nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> ><mailto:accountability-cross <mailto:accountability-cross> -community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:community-bounces@icann.org> %3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cros s-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:s-community-bounces@icann.org> %3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross <mailto:accountability-cross> -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> %3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org> ><mailto:accountability-cross-com <mailto:accountability-cross-com> <mailto:accountability <mailto:accountability> <mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> <mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> ><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> >>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> ><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> ><mailto:j <mailto:j> ukacz@erst.dk <mailto:ukacz@erst.dk> <mailto:jukac <mailto:jukac> z@erst.dk <mailto:z@erst.dk> <mailto:z@erst.dk <mailto:z@erst.dk> >>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/ url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.co <http://urldefense.proofpoint.co> m/v2/url> ?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk <http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> <http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d=C wIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB 1PW w WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:accountabilit <mailto:accountabilit> y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> %3cmailto: accountability-c> ross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org> ><mailto:accountability-cr <mailto:accountability-cr> <mailto:acc <mailto:acc> oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountabilit y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> tability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.or <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.or> g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org> %3cmailto:oss-community-bounc es@icann.org <mailto:es@icann.org> >>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:accou <mailto:accou> nta bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> ><mailto:accountability-cross <mailto:accountability-cross> -community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:community-bounces@icann.org> %3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cros s-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:s-community-bounces@icann.org> %3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross- <mailto:accountability-cross-> com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> %3cmailto:accounta bility-cross-com> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> ><mailto:accountability-cross-comm <mailto:accountability-cross-comm> <mailto:accountabil <mailto:accountabil> ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3cm ailto:accountability> -cross-comm> unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org> <mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org> ><mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org> >>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://neustar.biz> <http://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz><http://www.neusta r.biz <http://r.biz> <http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz> >>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:ka <mailto:ka> vouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:vouss.arasteh@gmail.com> %3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:3cmailto%3Akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >><mailto:k <mailto:k> avo <mailto:kavo%0b <mailto:kavo%250b> >>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com> %3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:3cmailto%3Akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >>>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross <mailto:accountability-cross> -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> %3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org> ><mailto:accountability-cross-com <mailto:accountability-cross-com> <mailto:accountability <mailto:accountability> <mailto:mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> -cross-com> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> <mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> ><mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> >>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> <mailto:becky.bu <mailto:becky.bu> rr@neustar.biz <mailto:rr@neustar.biz> %3cmailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:3cmailto%3Abecky.burr@neustar.biz> >><mailto:becky.burr <mailto:becky.burr> <mailto:becky.burr%0b <mailto:becky.burr%250b> >>>>@neustar.biz <http://neustar.biz> <http://neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> >>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> <mailto:Mathieu <mailto:Mathieu> . Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Weill@afnic.fr> %3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:3cmailto%3AMathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> >><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We> <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b <mailto:Mathieu.We%250b> >>>>ill@afnic.fr <mailto:ill@afnic.fr> <mailto:ill@afnic.fr <mailto:ill@afnic.fr> ><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> >>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.n <mailto:thomas@rickert.n> et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:et%253cmailto%3Athomas@rickert.net> >><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> <mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> %0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> <mailto:leonfelipe <mailto:leonfelipe> @sanchez.mx <http://sanchez.mx> %3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:3cmailto%3Aleonfelipe@sanchez.mx> >><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s> <mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s> %0b>>>>anchez.mx <http://anchez.mx> <http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> >>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross- <mailto:Accountability-Cross-> Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> %3cmailto:Accounta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm> <mailto:Accountabil <mailto:Accountabil> ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3cm ailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org> <mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org> ><mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org> >>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7 M&e =
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma ilm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm%0b>>>>a n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETe DAL C _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2H ozb e OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC 7M& e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross- <mailto:Accountability-Cross-> Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> %3cmailto:Accounta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm> <mailto:Accountabil <mailto:Accountabil> ity<mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> %3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3cm ailto:Accountability> -Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org> <mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org> ><mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org> >>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7 M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross- <mailto:Accountability-Cross-> Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> %3cmailto:Accounta bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> <mailto:munity@icann.org <mailto:munity@icann.org> >>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lma n _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC _ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Ho zbe O ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7 M&e =
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-C <mailto:Accountability-Cross-C> omm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> %3cmailto:Accountab ility-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org> <mailto:unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@icann.org> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail man _ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL C_l U Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe OZX Y oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co> mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> %3cmailto:Accountabi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org> <mailto:nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co> mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> %3cmailto:Accountabi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org> <mailto:nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co> mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> %3cmailto:Accountabi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org> <mailto:nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co> mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> %3cmailto:Accountabi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org> <mailto:nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co> mmunity@icann.org <mailto:mmunity@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
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
I forgot to note the "deal" also gives the GAC the ability to participate as decisional and not only advisory. This Is a significant change and a serious compromise. I fear this exchange is taking us backward, not forward. Regards, Keith
On Feb 5, 2016, at 12:07 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> <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] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability-cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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
http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGNu 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWw WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability-cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXY oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Keith GAC participation at an equal footing is a settled principle since the start of the ccwg and its first draft reports. You may try to reopen that now of course, but that is inconsistent with our multistakeholder model. best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:10 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
I forgot to note the "deal" also gives the GAC the ability to participate as decisional and not only advisory. This Is a significant change and a serious compromise. I fear this exchange is taking us backward, not forward.
Regards, Keith
On Feb 5, 2016, at 12:07 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> <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] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability-cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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
http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGNu 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWw WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability-cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXY oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Jorge, I have no interest in reopening that debate. The Arasteh/Burr proposal accepts the GAC's decisional role and elevated Board's obligation, but provides a check and balance in a very narrow and necessary way. Regards, Keith
On Feb 5, 2016, at 12:15 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Keith
GAC participation at an equal footing is a settled principle since the start of the ccwg and its first draft reports.
You may try to reopen that now of course, but that is inconsistent with our multistakeholder model.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:10 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
I forgot to note the "deal" also gives the GAC the ability to participate as decisional and not only advisory. This Is a significant change and a serious compromise. I fear this exchange is taking us backward, not forward.
Regards, Keith
On Feb 5, 2016, at 12:07 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> <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] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability-cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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
http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGNu 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWw WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability-cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXY oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Keith It is not narrow as I explained before. Please read and consider my arguments and try to understand them. Excluding GAC from any community decision where a Board decision is at stake which has considered positively GAC advice (and ergo "implements" it), means that GAC will be excluded from the vast majority of which are relevant to it. Unless we narrow this down to the original wording from Becky (as we understood her "in other words..." sentence), this carve out is an outright exclusion from community decision on poublic policy matters, because there almost always be some GAC advice the Board considered on such decision. Best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:24 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Jorge,
I have no interest in reopening that debate. The Arasteh/Burr proposal accepts the GAC's decisional role and elevated Board's obligation, but provides a check and balance in a very narrow and necessary way.
Regards, Keith
On Feb 5, 2016, at 12:15 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Keith
GAC participation at an equal footing is a settled principle since the start of the ccwg and its first draft reports.
You may try to reopen that now of course, but that is inconsistent with our multistakeholder model.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:10 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
I forgot to note the "deal" also gives the GAC the ability to participate as decisional and not only advisory. This Is a significant change and a serious compromise. I fear this exchange is taking us backward, not forward.
Regards, Keith
On Feb 5, 2016, at 12:07 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> <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] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability-cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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
http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGNu 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWw WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability-cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXY oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1 Jorge The expanded carve out model would prevent the GAC and the Governments from playing its legitimate role in the multistakeholder environment of ICANN. Unless reverted to the original interpretation of Becky ("in other words......"), that was what we understood the basis upon which we were in principle capable of trying to accept her idea. Best Rafael Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos. -------- Original message -------- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Date:05/02/2016 18:33 (GMT+01:00) To: kdrazek@verisign.com Cc: thomas@rickert.net, accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Keith It is not narrow as I explained before. Please read and consider my arguments and try to understand them. Excluding GAC from any community decision where a Board decision is at stake which has considered positively GAC advice (and ergo "implements" it), means that GAC will be excluded from the vast majority of which are relevant to it. Unless we narrow this down to the original wording from Becky (as we understood her "in other words..." sentence), this carve out is an outright exclusion from community decision on poublic policy matters, because there almost always be some GAC advice the Board considered on such decision. Best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:24 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Jorge,
I have no interest in reopening that debate. The Arasteh/Burr proposal accepts the GAC's decisional role and elevated Board's obligation, but provides a check and balance in a very narrow and necessary way.
Regards, Keith
On Feb 5, 2016, at 12:15 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Keith
GAC participation at an equal footing is a settled principle since the start of the ccwg and its first draft reports.
You may try to reopen that now of course, but that is inconsistent with our multistakeholder model.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:10 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
I forgot to note the "deal" also gives the GAC the ability to participate as decisional and not only advisory. This Is a significant change and a serious compromise. I fear this exchange is taking us backward, not forward.
Regards, Keith
On Feb 5, 2016, at 12:07 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> <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] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability-cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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
http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGNu 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWw WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability-cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXY oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
You may continue to parse my words, and I apologize to everyone who thought we were making progress for creating that opportunity. Nonetheless, the compromise on the table relates – as stated in my original email and in all discussions since that time – to any exercise of community power intended to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice (that’s a formal definition). You are free to reject that compromise, but that is what I put on the table. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: "<Perez Galindo>", Rafael <RPEREZGA@minetur.es<mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>> Date: Friday, February 5, 2016 at 1:04 PM To: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Cc: "thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>" <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues +1 Jorge The expanded carve out model would prevent the GAC and the Governments from playing its legitimate role in the multistakeholder environment of ICANN. Unless reverted to the original interpretation of Becky ("in other words......"), that was what we understood the basis upon which we were in principle capable of trying to accept her idea. Best Rafael Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos. -------- Original message -------- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Date:05/02/2016 18:33 (GMT+01:00) To: kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Keith It is not narrow as I explained before. Please read and consider my arguments and try to understand them. Excluding GAC from any community decision where a Board decision is at stake which has considered positively GAC advice (and ergo "implements" it), means that GAC will be excluded from the vast majority of which are relevant to it. Unless we narrow this down to the original wording from Becky (as we understood her "in other words..." sentence), this carve out is an outright exclusion from community decision on poublic policy matters, because there almost always be some GAC advice the Board considered on such decision. Best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:24 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
Jorge,
I have no interest in reopening that debate. The Arasteh/Burr proposal accepts the GAC's decisional role and elevated Board's obligation, but provides a check and balance in a very narrow and necessary way.
Regards, Keith
On Feb 5, 2016, at 12:15 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear Keith
GAC participation at an equal footing is a settled principle since the start of the ccwg and its first draft reports.
You may try to reopen that now of course, but that is inconsistent with our multistakeholder model.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:10 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
I forgot to note the "deal" also gives the GAC the ability to participate as decisional and not only advisory. This Is a significant change and a serious compromise. I fear this exchange is taking us backward, not forward.
Regards, Keith
On Feb 5, 2016, at 12:07 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com><mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com><mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com><mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com><mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability-cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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
http://heritage.org<<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org-26lt-3B&d=CwQFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rHZZ4Tmo4FylcMz_NVPPh9XnYAWHC1L4TSj7EDQxjhs&s=TPHQA14h265fV5EVXwB-iGlGI77kSnWLw4nPf8FQrgs&e=>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__-26gt-3B-26gt-3B.org-5F-26d-3DCwIGaQ-26c-3DMOptNlVtIETeDALC-5FlULrw-26r-3D62cJFOifzm6X-5FGRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa&d=CwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rHZZ4Tmo4FylcMz_NVPPh9XnYAWHC1L4TSj7EDQxjhs&s=Xp_QgLOtQbZeYFbtdksY5SRdGPBF2mwWCG-y6Vkr5lc&e=> hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGNu 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk-26lt-3Bhttps-3A__urldefense.proofpoint.com_v2_url-3Fu-3Dhttp-2D&d=CwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rHZZ4Tmo4FylcMz_NVPPh9XnYAWHC1L4TSj7EDQxjhs&s=UQW5bs5fSQPdDyl2bZDwje-9VsDz7NepLfx3bsMDjtQ&e=> 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__3A-5F-5Fwww.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk-26gt-3B-26amp-3Bd-3DCwIGaQ-26amp-3Bc-3DMOptNlVtIETeDALC-5FlULrw-26amp-3Br-3D62cJFOif&d=CwQFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rHZZ4Tmo4FylcMz_NVPPh9XnYAWHC1L4TSj7EDQxjhs&s=-mfRg24LefQ637pT1NDy2PGo0BRqJ4m1meEhhyFeTxI&e=> zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWw WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability-cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz-26gt-3B-26lt-3Bhttp-3A__www.neustar.biz&d=CwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rHZZ4Tmo4FylcMz_NVPPh9XnYAWHC1L4TSj7EDQxjhs&s=eWOOo3jImLePdpM0NQFQfwRfTnhGmU9DeqWszm8ByNY&e=>>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXY oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rHZZ4Tmo4FylcMz_NVPPh9XnYAWHC1L4TSj7EDQxjhs&s=EFjh9luntiteyWMkcSsWKHP3YHns3HQi0J9zM2DBZKY&e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rHZZ4Tmo4FylcMz_NVPPh9XnYAWHC1L4TSj7EDQxjhs&s=EFjh9luntiteyWMkcSsWKHP3YHns3HQi0J9zM2DBZKY&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rHZZ4Tmo4FylcMz_NVPPh9XnYAWHC1L4TSj7EDQxjhs&s=EFjh9luntiteyWMkcSsWKHP3YHns3HQi0J9zM2DBZKY&e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rHZZ4Tmo4FylcMz_NVPPh9XnYAWHC1L4TSj7EDQxjhs&s=EFjh9luntiteyWMkcSsWKHP3YHns3HQi0J9zM2DBZKY&e=>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rHZZ4Tmo4FylcMz_NVPPh9XnYAWHC1L4TSj7EDQxjhs&s=EFjh9luntiteyWMkcSsWKHP3YHns3HQi0J9zM2DBZKY&e=>
Dear all I want to thank Jorge for his comments, with which me and other members in the GAC are in agreement. best regards Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 2:06 p.m., <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> escribió:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> <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] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability-cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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
http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGNu 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWw WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accountability-cr> oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability-cross-comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability-cross-com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXY oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
FWIW I have not yet concluded it disenfranchises anyone but I said I would not like that to happen and I am hoping that (as a form of question) Becky's proposal is not doing that. You seem to have confidently confirmed that it doesn't by referencing the 2/3 which is not a relevant part that helps answer my question. It will have been helpful if you confirm that a combination of the 3 items I listed would be possible under the proposed text. For the record, I personally am not comfortable with the 2/3 clause, not that it would really make any significant difference in the rejection of GAC's advice(if board indeed wants to reject such "consensus" advice) but that it sets a formal vote requirement specifically for GAC advice. I would have still had the same concern if it were 50%/60% or 1/3, as I believe the board's internal process to making decisions should apply. Overall I have no strong opinion, nor do I care much about this if board is okay by it. Regards On 5 Feb 2016 5:57 p.m., "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
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
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net> <thomas@rickert.net>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> escribió:
Kavouss,
Becky responded to this yesterday:
Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating this.
I expect she will follow up soon.
Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC carve out to IRP.
I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
Best,
Brett
On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Beckie As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. Awaiting your action , I remain Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
==
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cr oss-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
I have a proposal for discussion.
Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.
I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
Just a thought -
===
Regards
Jorge
________________________________ 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
http://heritage.org<; https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage http:// .org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa
hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGNu 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch
Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Beckie, Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Kavouss
In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
Regards
Jorge
Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear all
I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cr oss-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
³ Burr Proposal:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today¹s call.
Best regards,
Finn and Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>
http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<; https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk &d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif
zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWw WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cr oss-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-comm unity@icann.org>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
* Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: <no subject>
Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues
First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community.
We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area
We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
Package Deal
1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
· Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board¹s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community¹s power to challenge such Board decisions.
· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
· Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).
Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto: Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
< https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe
OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto: Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXY oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
As I said on the call, this is most likely to arise in the context of an IRP, but that is not a principled basis for limiting the carve out to exercise of the community IRP power. The challenge could just as easily be to the Board’s implementation of a GAC-suggested Bylaws change. That would raise EXACTLY the same “two bites at the apple” issue. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Date: Friday, February 5, 2016 at 5:26 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Kavouss In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations. Regards Jorge Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear All, Why Not taking initial Beckie,s Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other questions resulted from het revised text. Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear all I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday. A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it. This change in Becky’s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant. Regards Jorge Von:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion: “ Burr Proposal: ? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23. The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.” However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN’s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky’s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today’s call. Best regards, Finn and Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk...> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH PPlease consider the environment before printing this email. Fra:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss’ email). I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus! 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) * Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office:+1.202.533.2932 Mobile:+1.202.352.6367 /neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: <no subject> Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings, I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible the entire community. We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11 We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together. However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection. We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession towards each other position .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability. Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed . The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical 1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. Please note that I have also included Malcolm’s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it. Package Deal 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge such Board decisions. · Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February) · Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading; · Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and · Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading. 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=yDRdX15FwyM9J0bagKfa0s5JkI7GyjxPg7rMS_2pn80&s=hlf6AIPzJ6n8_7C6qPRlFLUPqYtwGvSuLEBWM6BkI68&e=>
participants (21)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Bruce Tonkin -
Burr, Becky -
Chris Disspain -
Drazek, Keith -
Edward Morris -
Greg Shatan -
Gregory, Holly -
James Gannon -
James M. Bladel -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Julia Katja Wolman -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Matthew Shears -
Olga Cavalli -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Perez Galindo, Rafael -
Schaefer, Brett -
Seun Ojedeji -
Thomas Rickert -
Thomas Rickert