[CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Fri Feb 5 11:39:18 UTC 2016


Dear Beckie
As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package,
Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us
May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion.
As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people.
Awaiting your action , I remain
Regards
Kavousd        
   

Sent from my iPhone

> On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
> 
> Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
>  
> This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged):
>  
> ==
>  
> Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky
> Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05
> An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
>  
> I have a proposal for discussion.
>  
> Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission.  What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice.  In other words, the GAC  would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s Mission.
>  
> I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.
>  
> Just a thought - 
>  
> ===
>  
> Regards
>  
> Jorge
>  
> Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] 
> Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41
> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> Cc: <jukacz at erst.dk> <jukacz at erst.dk>; <accountability-cross-community at icann.org> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>; Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>
> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
>  
> Dear Beckie,
> Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if includes your original text.   
> Regards 
> Kavouss
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
> 
> Dear Kavouss
>  
> In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
>  
> Regards
>  
> Jorge
>  
> Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] 
> Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25
> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> Cc: <jukacz at erst.dk> <jukacz at erst.dk>; <accountability-cross-community at icann.org> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
>  
> Dear All,
> Why Not taking initial Beckie,s
> Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not  get into other questions resulted from het revised text.
> Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call
> Regards
> Kavousd    
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
> 
> Dear all
>  
> I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having yesterday.
>  
> A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are relevant to it.
>  
> This change in Becky’s initial proposal (where the carve-out was directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
>  
> Regards
>  
> Jorge
>  
> Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34
> An: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
>  
> Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
>  
> Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text  for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2 February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
>  
>> 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 Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.”
>  
> However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text suggested by Brett  (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN’s Bylaws and that it refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As such, Becky’s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be considered at today’s call.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
>  
> Finn and Julia
>  
> 
> 
> Julia Katja Wolman
> 
> DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
> 
> Dahlerups Pakhus
> Langelinie Allé 17
> DK-2100 København Ø
> Telephone: +45 3529 1000
> Direct: +45 35291308
> E-mail: jukacz at erst.dk
> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk
> 
> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
> 
> P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky
> Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19
> Til: Kavouss Arasteh; accountability-cross-community at icann.org; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
> Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
>  
> Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach.  We have all been working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a consensus proposal.  My understanding is that this is designed to resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11.  I am supportive of this package deal, as described below (the description below was also included in Kavouss’ email).  I appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus!
>  
>  
> 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 
> ·      Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:  
> 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. 
> 
>  2.   Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 
>      3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
>  Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
>  Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
> Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
> 4.   Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise  on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). 
>  
>  
>  
> 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
>  
> From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM
> To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>, Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
> Subject: <no subject>
>  
> Dear Esteemed and respectful  CCWG Colleagues
> 
>  First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you:
> We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated  manner  on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the CCWG  in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in Recommendation 1  which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be  issued  well in advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
> 
> I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable and possible  the entire community.
> 
> We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as those of Recommendation 11
> 
> We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the interested parties together.
> 
> However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the connection  are sometimes more complex to  compared with the entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
> 
> We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area  
> 
> We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise as a backward step. Our role  is to make concession towards each other position  .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to  timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability. 
> 
> Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
> 
> To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
> 
> The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
> 
> Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed  by Beckie
> Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged
> Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the Board
> Maintain the rest of Recommendation  11 Unchanged
> No other  discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation
> Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to take it as it is
> I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of course entirely free to reject my suggestions.  Please note that my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change to Recommendation 2.  To be consistent with our standard procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb.  Please note that I have also included Malcolm’s requested clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or standard of review.  I do not believe that this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.  
> 
> Package Deal
> 
> 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
> 
>  
> 
> ·      Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: 
> 
>  
> 
> 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. 
> 
>  
> 
> 2.   Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. 
> 
>  
> 
> 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)
> 
>  
> 
> ·      Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;
> 
> ·      Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading; and
> 
> ·      Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final reading.
> 
>  
> 
> 4.   Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls).  
> 
>  Kavouss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160205/1d778520/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list