[CCWG-ACCT] Timing and agenda Thursday's call and options to be discussed?

Schaefer, Brett Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org
Thu Feb 4 08:40:40 UTC 2016


Leon,

This is the original version, not the slightly modified one sent later by Becky and included in Kavouss' latest compromise.

Best,

Brett

__________

On Feb 3, 2016, at 10:49 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>> wrote:

Dear Jorge,

I am pasting the content of Thomas’ attachment for your convenience:

<Quote>

From: Becky Burr


In anticipation of our newly scheduled call on Thursday, I have attempted to set out the proposals discussed last night.  Please accept my apologies in advance if I have in any way mischaracterized the contributions of Kavouss 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.

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 such Board decisions.

·      Modify The Table on Page 22 of Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and adjust paragraph 62 to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs.  Paragraph 62 would read as follows:

The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where use of a Community Power only attracts a decision to support or object to that power by four Decisional SOs or ACs or 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, in either case, 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.

<Unquote>

I hope you find this information useful.



Best regards,


León

El 04/02/2016, a las 12:04 a.m., <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> escribió:

Dear Thomas

Thank you for this info. The attachment seems not to be working.

I'm still unclear on what is what the GNSO participants and members -who after all reopened the compromise reached on rec 11- need for rec 11.

Hence it is difficult to start national consultations and even less easy to conduct a meaningful debate within the GAC without knowing whether we should consult on one, two, three or even more suggestions directed to satisfy the gnso.

I hope our GNSO colleagues may be able to clarify and detail their needs and proposals today, so that we can try to get national feedback and have a discussion in the GAC asap.

Thanks and regards

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 03.02.2016 um 18:52 schrieb Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net><mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>:

All,
you should have invitations for the calls on Thursday and Monday in the meantime.

Please note that we dropped the voting because suggestions made by Becky, Kavouss and Malcolm got some traction.

However, let us please clarify that we are not prescribing what a new compromise / consensus could look like. It can be individual suggestions, combinations thereof of even new ideas.

Becky had laid out the proposals on the table in an e-mail, which I have attached to this note.

The options on the table and ideas you might have shall be further discussed tomorrow.

Kind regards,
Thomas



<Here is an attempt to articulate the proposals on the table.>


Am 03.02.2016 um 07:01 schrieb Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>:

Hello co-chairs

Could you please respond to the email below?

Consultations in our constituencies are quite difficult whithout a clear process and timeline and agenda from your side.

Please answer this in full and do not point to general information:


We would also be grateful for an agenda, including a clear identification (and the text) of the options to be discussed, as was requested during this morning's call in the chat.

thanks and regards

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail:

Von: <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
Datum: 2. Februar 2016 um 18:51:55 MEZ
An: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Betreff: Timing and agenda Thursday's call and options to be discussed?

Dear co-chairs and staff

Have you already sent the invites for the call on Thursday?

We would also be grateful for an agenda, including a clear identification (and the text) of the options to be discussed, as was requested during this morning's call in the chat.

Thanks and regards

Jorge



________________________________
Brett Schaefer
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<http://heritage.org/>

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list