[CCWG-ACCT] Summary of proposals discussed last night in context of Rec. #11
Nigel Roberts
nigel at channelisles.net
Wed Feb 3 06:03:36 UTC 2016
Kavouss
Thank you for using a blank line between paragraphs in your latest email.
I didn't want to say anything before about this, because I didn't want
to seem rude or pedantic; nonetheless it really does make your emails
much easier to read.
I'd appreciate it if you continue!
Thanks again
On 02/02/16 23:20, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Dear CCWG members and participants
>
> Dear GAC Members
>
> At CCWG call 81 ,in discussing REC.11 Annex 11 there was two
> alternatives for rejection of GAC Advice by the Board
>
> 1.
>
> 2/3 Majority
>
> 2.
>
> Simple MAJORITY
>
> Since there was a lengthy discussion, I proposed a compromise of 60%
> instead of THRESHOLD IN 1) and 2) above WITHOUT TOUCHING ANY ELEMENT OF
> rec.1 which was accepted by consensus
>
> Someone talked about a creative action and proposed to retain 2/3
> Majority in Rec.11 .Annex 11 but modify REC 1 by adding a phrase at
> paragraph 23 of that Rec , if I am not mistaken.
>
> That proposal was made by Beckie .
>
> These two proposal were on the table without being mutually inclusive
>
> Today I observed that people not only wants to Modify Rec 1 ; disabling
> GAC to exercise its community power not to be counted as one of the TWO
> SO/AC IN CASE other part of comity invoke IRP in regard with ICANN
> action relating to GAC Advice alleged to exceed ICANN Mission while
> maintaining 2/3 majority in Rec 11 BUT ALSO LOWERING THAT THRESHOLD TO 60%
>
> This combination is inconsistent with my proposal
>
> Moreover such course of action has not formally been approved, even if
> unilaterally suggested by some people at the meeting and thus such
> amended proposal was not formally given to Beckie Group to discuss .
>
> Since the proponent of amended BECKIE PROPOSAL insisting on his views,
>
> *_I have formally withdrawn my initial 60% threshold proposal_*and
> stated that _apart from Beckie initial proposal_, *no other alternative
> proposal could discussed at Beckie’s group without the approval of CCWG*
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss .
>
>
> 2016-02-02 23:58 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>:
>
> PAUL
> There is no evidence that such decision was made by consensus
> People might have said many thing
> You can not just referring to unilateral statement in transcsript
> and take it as a consensus proposal
> Pls transcript is transcrip those people who have spoken must
> understand that there is no valuse on unilateral decision .We are
> member of a group any decision for study must be AGREED BY EVERY BODY
> Regards
>
>
> 2016-02-02 23:54 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig
> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>:
>
> Kavouss
>
> You are wrong. I read the transcript.
>
> Sorry
> Paul
>
> --
> Paul Rosenzweig
> Sent from myMail app for Android
>
> Tuesday, 02 February 2016, 05:53PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh
> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>:
>
>
> 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
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3apaul.rosenzweig@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
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list