[CCWG-ACCT] Summary of proposals discussed last night in context of Rec. #11

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue Feb 2 21:51:58 UTC 2016


Dear Becky
M

2016-02-02 22:48 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>:

> I think you are correct Brett, I’ve just got IRP brain.
>
> *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: <Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
> Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 4:45 PM
> To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>, Accountability Community <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Cc: "acct-staff at icann.org" <acct-staff at icann.org>
> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of proposals discussed last night in
> context of Rec. #11
>
> Becky,
>
>
>
> Why would your proposal be restricted to the “Board’s implementation of
> GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws”? What if GAC
> consensus advice results in a Board decision that would amend the bylaws or
> implement some other serious change that is not necessarily in violation of
> the bylaws? I think the same provision should apply.
>
>
>
> I propose this version that deletes the “Board’s implementation of GAC
> Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws” clause and slightly
> modifies the final sentence that also referenced violating the bylaws:
>
>
>
> “*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 Board decisions arising from such advice.”*
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Brett
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> BrettSchaefer
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security
> and Foreign Policy
> The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=BhNS2F0NwoY3vJnGcklA9OHtXf0isVPttoSQp6-sAKE&s=pnjB0T34cYwAkl1j4QvbGTvZS_0FxKdvs1RjNrEr1hU&e=>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Burr,
> Becky
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 02, 2016 4:26 PM
> *To:* Accountability Community
> *Cc:* acct-staff at icann.org
> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of proposals discussed last night in
> context of Rec. #11
>
>
>
>
>
> I have attempted to set out the proposals discussed last night.  Apologies
> if I have mischaracterized the contributions made by Kavouss and/or Malcolm
>
>
>
> *Aresteh Proposal*:
>
>
>
> Modify Rec. #11/Annex 11 to provide that GAC Advice supported by
> consensus, defined as general agreement in the absence of a formal
> objection, may be rejected only by a vote of at least *60%* of the
> Board.  All other requirements (e.g., rationale to be provided, etc.)
> unchanged.  This proposal is to modify Recommendation 11 Annex 11
> without  any change to Recommendation 1 as it stands on 02 February 2016
>
>
>
> *Hutty Gloss on 60% Threshold*:  Add language to ensure that
> supermajority requirement creates no new expectation of approval or
> otherwise modify the Board’s standard of review of GAC Advice.
>
>
>
> *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.*
>
>
>
> ?         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.  *
>
>
>
> *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>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160202/b1deffdd/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list