[CCWG-ACCT] Summary of proposals discussed last night in context of Rec. #11
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Wed Feb 3 08:13:47 UTC 2016
*1. REPLY TO MIKE*
Dear Mr. Chartier
( you called me Mr. Arasteh then I have to do and apply the same rule
calling you Mr. Chartier9
Thanky you for your message
You said at the begining of your message the following
*Quote*
*"Dear Mr. Arasteh,*
*I understand where you are coming from."*
Unquote
Unfortunately this is not a friendly question and perhaps offensive ,if
not insultation
I never ever asked and even know where are you come from.This is not my
business not business of CCWG .
I FULLY RESPECT EVERY AND ALL NATIONS AND SIMILARLY EVERY DISTINGUISHED
COLLEAGUES NO MATTER WHERE THEY COME FROM, AND WHAT AFFILIATION THEY HAVE .
The purpose of the CCWG is not raising the question of or statement
relating to nationaly , race, colour, religeion, conviction ,political
adherance and so on.
We are just a group of freinds ,colleagues ,getting together and
collaborating with each other to contribute to the ICANN accountability.
Therefore, I consider, your question was not only hostile, offensive but
totally irrelevant and I therefore respectfully request you to kindly
refrain to make such an unfriendly and non ethical statement
I think every one of us must respect each other and evenif disagree with
one other observe mutual respect and spirit of ICANN code of conduct .
As for the substance of your views on the alternatives 7 options , I fully
respect your views as I respects views of others.
I think every one of us must
*2. Reply to Grec*
*Thank you for your message*
*You said the following:*
*Quote:*
*"Furthermore, I would note that the proposal, although originally made by
Kavouss in a long and multi-branched email string, received no attention
until I placed it in an entirely new email and brought it to the specific
attention of the CCWG. It was my email that initiated discussion of the
60% proposal. Therefore, I think it should more appropriately be called my
proposal in any event. I graciously allowed it to be called "Kavouss's
proposal"; however, based on the facts, that is clearly a misnomer, since
the work of the group is based on my email. I would therefore request that
the 60% proposal henceforth be called "Greg's Proposal."*
*Unquote*
*Dear Grec*
*What you have stated does not reflect the reality.Befroe I started my
e-mails ,painted by you as **multi-branched email string, I raised the
issue in a CCWG CALL..havind said that , in my view , it does not matter
who proposed the option, I am just interested in the proposal and not the
author of the proposal.*
*Thank you for your generosity to allow that the proposal be called my
proposal ,But I have withdrawn my proposal therefroe your gracious action
and generosity is no longer relevant as I HAVE NO PROPOSAL.*
*FR ME DOESN^T MATTER IF TAKEN UP BY SOMEBODY LIKE YOU AND BECALLED "GREC
PROPOSAL"*
Having said that, I respectfully request you to kindly refrain to make
such an unfriendly and non ethical statement
I think every one of us must respect each other and evenif disagree with
one other observe mutual respect and spirit of ICANN code of conduct .
Now let us back to work
Regards
Kavouss
2016-02-03 7:03 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>:
> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160203/420284a4/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list