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

Tue Feb 2 21:56:37 UTC 2016

No worries Kavouss, that is why I listed Malcolm’s suggestion separately.

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 at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 4:55 PM
To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>
Cc: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>, "acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>" <acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of proposals discussed last night in context of Rec. #11

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<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>:
Dear Becky
M

2016-02-02 22:48 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto: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<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932>  Mobile:+1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>/neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

From: <Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>>
Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 4:45 PM
To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Cc: "acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>" <acct-staff at icann.org<mailto: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<tel: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932>  Mobile:+1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>/neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at 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=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=2vFOpdIQRtAmDaGpx8fu9j80ExukGWHWBAxuWE6U1ro&s=v6KIpgSIfQ-OiKJ208vr2V0cZLQ55vFnfjtyIUf44no&e=>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160202/b66dba0a/attachment-0001.html>