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

Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
Fri Feb 5 16:36:14 UTC 2016


Of course it is clear.  The remaining minority of GAC members are simply trying to create ambiguity where it does not exist so as to avoid the result they oppose....

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key



-----Original Message-----
From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 11:21 AM
To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>; Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>; Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Cc: thomas at rickert.net; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues

Agree, seems very clear, and it is an important element to address remaining concerns associated with raising the rejection threshold to 60%.


Thanks—

J.


On 2/5/16, 10:18 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Drazek, Keith" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
on behalf of kdrazek at verisign.com> 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:
>>>>kav
>>>>o
>>>>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><mai
>>>>lto
>>>>:
>>>>Jo
>>>> rge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
>>>> 
>>>><Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mai
>>>>lto
>>>>:
>>>>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:accountabili
>>>>ty-
>>>>c
>>>>ro
>>>> ss-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
>>>> 
>>>>oss-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.o
>>>>rg>
>>>>>
>>>> [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:greg
>>>>sha
>>>>t
>>>>an
>>>> ipc at gmail.com>>; Mueller,
>>>> Milton L
>>>> 
>>>><milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu><mailto:milton at gatech.ed
>>>>u>>
>>>> Cc:
>>>> 
>>>>accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross
>>>>-co
>>>>m
>>>>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__her
>>>>ita
>>>>g
>>>>e.
>>>> 
>>>>org&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrx
>>>>dYa
>>>>h
>>>>OP
>>>> 
>>>>8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdCMQmeKyfvfgKztN_5hTNBQ&s=FDOmkRL9aM
>>>>pNQ
>>>>p
>>>>U6
>>>> GLyFoxSd_SrpW5QS_fiz3xNHU-E&e=
>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage
>>>> 
>>>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDm
>>>>rxd
>>>>Y
>>>>a
>>>> 
>>>>hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ
>>>>2mG
>>>>N
>>>>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><mai
>>>>lto
>>>>:
>>>>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-cros
>>>>s-c
>>>>o
>>>>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-cros
>>>>s-c
>>>>o
>>>>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.
>>>>Bur
>>>>r
>>>>@n
>>>> eustar.biz>>; Thomas Rickert
>>>> 
>>>><thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net><mailto:thomas at rickert
>>>>.ne
>>>>t
>>>>>>
>>>> ; Mathieu Weill
>>>> 
>>>><Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr><mailto:Mathie
>>>>u.W
>>>>e
>>>>il
>>>> l at afnic.fr>>; León Felipe
>>>> Sánchez Ambía
>>>> 
>>>><leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli
>>>>pe@
>>>>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><mai
>>>>lto
>>>>:
>>>>Jo
>>>> rge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
>>>> 
>>>><Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mai
>>>>lto
>>>>:
>>>>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><mai
>>>>lto
>>>>:
>>>>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-cros
>>>>s-c
>>>>o
>>>>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-cros
>>>>s-c
>>>>o
>>>>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><mai
>>>>lto
>>>>:
>>>>Jo
>>>> rge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
>>>> 
>>>><Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mai
>>>>lto
>>>>:
>>>>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:accountabili
>>>>ty-
>>>>c
>>>>ro
>>>> ss-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
>>>> 
>>>>oss-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.o
>>>>rg>
>>>>>
>>>> [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-cros
>>>>s-c
>>>>o
>>>>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=
>>>>htt
>>>>p
>>>>-3
>>>> 
>>>>A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJ
>>>>FOi
>>>>f
>>>>zm
>>>> 
>>>>6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdCMQmeKyfvfg
>>>>Kzt
>>>>N
>>>>_5
>>>> hTNBQ&s=vg2MZzQiAfSCjAitWGLmeRUMzh0veJqwc1AviznVzWs&e=
>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
>>>> 
>>>>3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62c
>>>>JFO
>>>>i
>>>>f
>>>> 
>>>>zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSU
>>>>B1P
>>>>W
>>>>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:accountabili
>>>>ty-
>>>>c
>>>>ro
>>>> ss-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
>>>> 
>>>>oss-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.o
>>>>rg>
>>>>>
>>>> [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
>>>>-co
>>>>m
>>>>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:
>>>>kav
>>>>o
>>>>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-cros
>>>>s-c
>>>>o
>>>>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.
>>>>bur
>>>>r
>>>>@n
>>>> eustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill
>>>> 
>>>><Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr><mailto:Mathie
>>>>u.W
>>>>e
>>>>il
>>>> l at afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert
>>>> 
>>>><thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net><mailto:thomas at rickert
>>>>.ne
>>>>t
>>>>>>
>>>> , León Felipe Sánchez
>>>> Ambía
>>>> 
>>>><leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli
>>>>pe@
>>>>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
>>>>-Co
>>>>m
>>>>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_ma
>>>>ilm
>>>>a
>>>>n
>>>> 
>>>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETe
>>>>DAL
>>>>C
>>>>_
>>>> 
>>>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2H
>>>>ozb
>>>>e
>>>>O
>>>> 
>>>>ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC
>>>>7M&
>>>>e
>>>>=
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m
>>>>ail
>>>>m
>>>>a
>>>> 
>>>>n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET
>>>>eDA
>>>>L
>>>>C
>>>> 
>>>>_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2
>>>>Hoz
>>>>b
>>>>e
>>>> 
>>>>OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w
>>>>C7M
>>>>&
>>>>e
>>>> = >
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross
>>>>-Co
>>>>m
>>>>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_ma
>>>>ilm
>>>>a
>>>>n
>>>> 
>>>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETe
>>>>DAL
>>>>C
>>>>_
>>>> 
>>>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2H
>>>>ozb
>>>>e
>>>>O
>>>> 
>>>>ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC
>>>>7M&
>>>>e
>>>>=
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> 
>>>>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross
>>>>-Co
>>>>m
>>>>mu
>>>> nity at icann.org>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma
>>>>ilm
>>>>a
>>>>n
>>>> 
>>>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETe
>>>>DAL
>>>>C
>>>>_
>>>> 
>>>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2H
>>>>ozb
>>>>e
>>>>O
>>>> 
>>>>ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC
>>>>7M&
>>>>e
>>>>=
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> 
>>>>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross
>>>>-Co
>>>>m
>>>>mu
>>>> nity at icann.org>
>>>> 
>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma
>>>>ilm
>>>>a
>>>>n_
>>>> 
>>>>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD
>>>>ALC
>>>>_
>>>>lU
>>>> 
>>>>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hoz
>>>>beO
>>>>Z
>>>>XY
>>>> 
>>>>oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&
>>>>e=
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> 
>>>>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross
>>>>-Co
>>>>m
>>>>mu
>>>> nity at icann.org>
>>>> 
>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma
>>>>ilm
>>>>a
>>>>n_
>>>> 
>>>>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD
>>>>ALC
>>>>_
>>>>lU
>>>> 
>>>>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5G
>>>>lXw
>>>>x
>>>>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

_______________________________________________
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