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

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue Feb 2 21:55:09 UTC 2016


Dear Becky,
Pls kindly maintain my proposal as submitted without any change. I have
noted that someone wishes to add to that I disagree. However, should you
decide to have a third proposal I wish to know the author of that proposal
m

*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 stricly limited  to modify Recommendation 11 Annex 11  without
any change to Recommendation 1 as it stands on 02 February 2016



Kavouss

2016-02-02 22:51 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:

> 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/20160202/20eccf90/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list