[CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Matthew Shears
mshears at cdt.org
Fri Feb 5 16:20:57 UTC 2016
Likewise.
Matthew
On 05/02/2016 08:18, Drazek, Keith wrote:
> This is clear to me.
>
> Regards,
> Keith
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky
> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 11:13 AM
> To: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org; thomas at rickert.net
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
> Importance: High
>
> NO! The GAC’s role would be limited only where the exercise of community power is challenging the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice! That leaves PLENTY of room for GAC participation - as a decision maker - in matters that have public policy implications.
>
>
>
>
> 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>
>
>
>
>
> On 2/5/16, 11:09 AM, "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch"
> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
>
>> Dear Becky
>>
>> it seems that then we could not agree, as your proposal would exclude the
>> GAC from the community mechanism in any issue which may be relevant to
>> the GAC.
>>
>> This is clearly contrary to the equal footing participation of all SO/AC
>> we have agreed a long time ago.
>>
>> best
>>
>> Jorge
>>
>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>>
>>> Am 05.02.2016 um 17:05 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>:
>>>
>>> That does not limit the preceding more general statement of principle
>>> that
>>> says the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an
>>> exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board’s implement.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/5/16, 11:03 AM, "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch"
>>> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What about your following sentence:?
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> seems clear that it refers the carve-out to the community IRP
>>>>
>>>> best
>>>>
>>>> Jorge
>>>>
>>>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>>>>
>>>> Am 05.02.2016 um 16:54 schrieb Burr, Becky
>>>> <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>:
>>>>
>>>> Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that
>>>> the
>>>> "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise
>>>> of
>>>> community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC
>>>> Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I
>>>> see no
>>>> principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to
>>>> limit
>>>> this to the IRP.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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://neustar.biz>
>>>> <http://www.neustar.biz>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli"
>>>> <olgacavalli at gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Brett
>>>> there was no vote on the call yesteday
>>>> best
>>>> Olga
>>>>
>>>> El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett
>>>> <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>>
>>>> escribió:
>>>>
>>>> Kavouss,
>>>>
>>>> Becky responded to this yesterday:
>>>>
>>>> Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table
>>>> when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to Board
>>>> action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email demonstrating
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>> I expect she will follow up soon.
>>>>
>>>> Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC
>>>> carve out to IRP.
>>>>
>>>> I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but
>>>> it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's
>>>> text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
>>>>
>>>> If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by
>>>> Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a
>>>> tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Brett
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
>>>>
>>>> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com><mailto:kavo
>>>> us
>>>> s.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:
>>>> Jo
>>>> rge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
>>>>
>>>> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:
>>>> Jo
>>>> rge.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-c
>>>> ro
>>>> ss-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
>>>>
>>>> oss-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:oss-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<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshat
>>>> an
>>>> ipc at gmail.com>>; Mueller,
>>>> Milton L
>>>> <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu><mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
>>>> Cc:
>>>>
>>>> accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com
>>>> mu
>>>> nity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm
>>>> unity at icann.org<mailto:unity 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 Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. In
>>>> other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than two
>>>> SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s
>>>> implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritag
>>>> e.
>>>>
>>>> org&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYah
>>>> OP
>>>>
>>>> 8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdCMQmeKyfvfgKztN_5hTNBQ&s=FDOmkRL9aMpNQp
>>>> U6
>>>> GLyFoxSd_SrpW5QS_fiz3xNHU-E&e=
>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage
>>>> .org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdY
>>>> a
>>>>
>>>> hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGN
>>>> u
>>>> 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= >
>>>> 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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:
>>>> Jo
>>>> rge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
>>>> Cc: <jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>>
>>>> <jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>>;
>>>>
>>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co
>>>> mm
>>>> unity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com
>>>> munity at icann.org<mailto:munity at icann.org>>>
>>>>
>>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co
>>>> mm
>>>> unity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com
>>>> munity at icann.org<mailto:munity at icann.org>>>; Becky Burr
>>>>
>>>> <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr
>>>> @n
>>>> eustar.biz>>; Thomas Rickert
>>>>
>>>> <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net><mailto:thomas at rickert.net
>>>> ; Mathieu Weill
>>>>
>>>> <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.We
>>>> il
>>>> l at afnic.fr>>; León Felipe
>>>> Sánchez Ambía
>>>>
>>>> <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe at s
>>>> an
>>>> chez.mx>>;
>>>> Schneider Thomas BAKOM
>>>>
>>>> <Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>
>>>> <m
>>>> ailto: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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:
>>>> Jo
>>>> rge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
>>>>
>>>> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:
>>>> Jo
>>>> rge.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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:
>>>> Jo
>>>> rge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
>>>> Cc: <jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>>
>>>> <jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>>;
>>>>
>>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co
>>>> mm
>>>> unity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com
>>>> munity at icann.org<mailto:munity at icann.org>>>
>>>>
>>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co
>>>> mm
>>>> unity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com
>>>> munity at icann.org<mailto:munity 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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:
>>>> Jo
>>>> rge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
>>>>
>>>> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:
>>>> Jo
>>>> rge.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 Becky¹s 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-c
>>>> ro
>>>> ss-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
>>>>
>>>> oss-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:oss-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<mailto:accountability-cross-co
>>>> mm
>>>> unity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com
>>>> munity at icann.org<mailto:munity 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:
>>>>
>>>> ³
>>>> 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 Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power
>>>> for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s 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 Board¹s 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 community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause
>>>> ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
>>>>
>>>> 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 ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the
>>>> community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice.
>>>> As
>>>> such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be
>>>> considered at today¹s 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<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http
>>>> -3
>>>>
>>>> A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif
>>>> zm
>>>>
>>>> 6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdCMQmeKyfvfgKztN
>>>> _5
>>>> hTNBQ&s=vg2MZzQiAfSCjAitWGLmeRUMzh0veJqwc1AviznVzWs&e=
>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
>>>> 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOi
>>>> f
>>>>
>>>> zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PW
>>>> w
>>>> WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
>>>>
>>>> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
>>>>
>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fra:
>>>>
>>>> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-c
>>>> ro
>>>> ss-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
>>>>
>>>> oss-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:oss-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<mailto:accountability-cross-com
>>>> mu
>>>> nity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm
>>>> unity at icann.org<mailto:unity 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 Kavouss¹ 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 Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power
>>>> for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s 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 Board¹s 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 community¹s 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 Board¹s 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 ³as is² (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<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz>
>>>>
>>>> From: Kavouss Arasteh
>>>>
>>>> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com><mailto:kavo
>>>> us
>>>> s.arasteh at gmail.com>>
>>>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM
>>>> To: Accountability Community
>>>>
>>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co
>>>> mm
>>>> unity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com
>>>> munity at icann.org<mailto:munity at icann.org>>>, Becky Burr
>>>>
>>>> <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr
>>>> @n
>>>> eustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill
>>>>
>>>> <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.We
>>>> il
>>>> l at afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert
>>>>
>>>> <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net><mailto:thomas at rickert.net
>>>> , León Felipe Sánchez
>>>> Ambía
>>>>
>>>> <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe at s
>>>> an
>>>> chez.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
>>>>
>>>> 1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by Beckie
>>>> 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged
>>>> 3. Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the
>>>> Board
>>>> 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged
>>>> 5. No other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation
>>>> 6. 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 Malcolm¹s 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 Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power
>>>> for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s 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 Board¹s 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 community¹s 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 Board¹s 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 ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated
>>>> Recommendation 11 calls).
>>>>
>>>> Kavouss
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com
>>>> mu
>>>> nity at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm
>>>> unity at icann.org<mailto:unity at icann.org>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>>> n
>>>>
>>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
>>>> _
>>>>
>>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe
>>>> O
>>>>
>>>> ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e
>>>> =
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm
>>>> a
>>>>
>>>> n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL
>>>> C
>>>>
>>>> _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozb
>>>> e
>>>>
>>>> OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&
>>>> e
>>>> = >
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com
>>>> mu
>>>> nity at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm
>>>> unity at icann.org<mailto:unity at icann.org>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>>> n
>>>>
>>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
>>>> _
>>>>
>>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe
>>>> O
>>>>
>>>> ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e
>>>> =
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com
>>>> mu
>>>> nity at icann.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>>> n
>>>>
>>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
>>>> _
>>>>
>>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe
>>>> O
>>>>
>>>> ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e
>>>> =
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com
>>>> mu
>>>> nity at icann.org>
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>>> n_
>>>>
>>>> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>>> lU
>>>>
>>>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZ
>>>> XY
>>>> oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com
>>>> mu
>>>> nity at icann.org>
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>>> n_
>>>>
>>>> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>>> lU
>>>>
>>>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwx
>>>> dC
>>>> MQmeKyfvfgKztN_5hTNBQ&s=VTk9IqV37-xLyMJG8fHErifAzzYMBIZoGD-_IRZR5oA&e=
> _______________________________________________
> 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
--
Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list