Thanks, Ed. I also won't add any color, except to agree that this is all coming very late. The train had effectively left the station (and in fact was approaching the next stop). J. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 10:57 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] fw: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out Fellow Councillors, For those not on the CCWG mailing list, I wanted to share this rather 'interesting' post from Steve Crocker. I won't comment other than to note that the deadline for minority statements was yesterday and the final Supplemental report is due today. Nevertheless, this is something we are going to have to deal with. Best, Ed Morris ________________________________ From: "Steve Crocker" <steve.crocker@icann.org<mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org>> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 4:29 PM To: "Mathieu Weill" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "Thomas Rickert" <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> Cc: "Steve Crocker" <steve.crocker@icann.org<mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org>>, "Icann-board ICANN" <icann-board@icann.org<mailto:icann-board@icann.org>>, "Accountability Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out CCWG Colleagues, The Board has a serious and continued concern about the issues being raised that may result in the reduction of the GAC's ability to participate in community decision making. This is most noticeable in the question of thresholds for board removal, however this is not an issue about removal or even thresholds, it is one part of the community being (or perceiving that it is being) sidelined. The Board's concerns with this issue are not about Board removal, but about maintaining the balanced multistakeholder model. The Board is against any changes to the long established equilibrium and fairness among the different stakeholders within ICANN. The Board has long supported a threshold of four participants for Board removal in the ultimate escalation method proposed by the CCWG. Selecting one portion of the ICANN community and removing them from the equation - just through the ability to say that the community is unhappy with the acceptance of GAC advice that is within ICANN's bylaws - raises significant concerns about how the multistakeholder model, and the ultimate stability of ICANN as an organization, can be maintained. This carved out exception undercuts the established role of governments within the multi stakeholder process, and could introduce new issues with the acceptance of ICANN's model undermining the work of the CCWG. We understand that there are concerns with this path from within other parts of ICANN community, including members of the GAC and ALAC. The best course, in our opinion, would be a careful and objective discussion of the whole matter of how advice from ALL parties is appropriately considered within ICANN. If there is a graceful way to remove this matter from the immediate pressure of the deadline of submitting this proposal and make it a priority matter for either the implementation phase or Work Stream 2, we think there will be a solution which is genuinely good for everyone. We encourage you to share the CCWG's proposal with the Chartering Organizations while the dialog on this outstanding point continues. Thank you, Steve Crocker Chair, ICANN Board of Directors _______________________________________________ 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