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

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue Feb 2 21:57:52 UTC 2016


*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

2016-02-02 22:56 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>:

> 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>
> Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 4:55 PM
> To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>
> Cc: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>, Accountability
> Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>, "
> 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
>
> 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
>>> <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/20160202/9b47cf43/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list