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

Tue Feb 2 22:53:05 UTC 2016

Dear Paul

I am very sorry to tell you that:

Our mandate is limited to discuss the  initial Becky’s  proposal and mine
only

Since I withdrew mine, if you want to make a new proposal that must be
submitted to the next meeting of CCWG on 09 Feb. 2016

This group is not a test LAB for multiple number on proposal otherwise we
will not end our work till 2017.

You can offer your proposal to the next CCWG MEETING

If agreed by consensus it will be discussed

Best Regards

2016-02-02 23:46 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>:

> That's ok.  If process requires I will advance the Aratesh/Burr proposal
> under my own name.  😊
>
> --
> Paul Rosenzweig
> Sent from myMail app for Android
> Tuesday, 02 February 2016, 05:42PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh <
> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>
>
> 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
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@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
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@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
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aBecky.Burr@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://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@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/e8f5ee3b/attachment.html>