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

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue Feb 2 22:42:49 UTC 2016


Dear Becky
Pls take out my proposal from the Table
I formally withdraw  MY PROPOSAL
Tks Kavouss

2016-02-02 23:34 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:

> Becky
> Your proposal did not have such statement
> Your proposal was clearly mentioned retaining 2/3 and modifying Rec1 to
> have an overall acceptance.
> This will cause considerable poblem and create serious of open-ended
> argument
> My question to you was to clarify that your question did not refer
> toeither 60% or simple majority . Let us go back to the discussions on call
> 81 There was two alternative mentioned by Steve ,
> - 2/3
> SIMPLE MAJORITY
> I proposed a middfle ground 60%
> You then proposed that
> 1.MOD. Rec 1  in disabling GAC  not to participate in ommunity empowering
> exercise when IRP is invoked by community for Board's actions exceeding its
> Mission and
> 2. Retain 2/3 as contained in Rec 11 Annex 11
> YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR PROPOSAL
> IT IS NOT ADMITTED. We agreed to work on your initial proposal and mine
> Now you implictly changing your proposal
> Disagree TO THAT course of action
> I case you insist I WILL IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAW MY PROPOSAL AND THEN WE GO
> BACK TO ccwg and rediscuss REC 11
> Please kindly clarify your position
> Once again if there would be any link between your proposal and 60% Please
> remove my proposal from the Table and go ahead with your own proposal only
> I also disagree with any new proposal .We can not discuss for days and day
> for receiving creative proposal
> Let us be realistic rather than creative.
> Best Regards
> Kavouss
>
> 2016-02-02 23:24 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>
>> Becky
>> Your proposal did not have such statement
>> Your proposal was clearly mentioned retaining 2/3 and modifying Rec1 to
>> have an overall acceptance.
>> This will cause considerable poblem and create serious of open-ended
>> argument
>> My question to you was to clarify that your question did not refer
>> toeither 60% or simple majority . Let us go back to the discussions on call
>> 81 There was two alternative mentioned by Steve ,
>> - 2/3
>> SIMPLE MAJORITY
>> I proposed a middfle ground 60%
>> You then proposed that
>> 1.MOD. Rec 1  in disabling GAC  not to participate in ommunity empowering
>> exercise when IRP is invoked by community for Board's actions exceeding its
>> Mission and
>> 2. Retain 2/3 as contained in Rec 11 Annex 11
>> YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR PROPOSAL
>> iT IS NOT ADMITTED. We agreed to work on your initial proposal and mine
>> Now you implictly changing your proposal
>> Disagreed
>> Regards
>> Kavouss
>>
>>
>>
>> 2016-02-02 23:10 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>:
>>
>>> UPDATED:
>>>
>>> I have attempted to set out the proposals discussed last night.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *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 strictly limited to 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 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 such Board decisions.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ·      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.  *
>>>
>>> Kavouss has asked whether my proposal is paired to a 66% threshold, 60%
>>> threshold or simple majority for rejecting GAC Advice.  It is not
>>> inconsistent with any of those outcomes.
>>>
>>> *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/20160202/1faeb9f4/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list