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

James M. Bladel jbladel at godaddy.com
Fri Feb 5 17:08:38 UTC 2016 

Hello Jorge -

Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC?

Thanks—

J.


On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on
behalf of Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch"
<accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

>A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory
>and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious
>compromise
>
>best
>
>Jorge
>
>Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>
>Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith
><kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>:
>
>The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the
>GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to
>reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate
>checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a
>successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the
>progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
>
>Regards,
>Keith
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji
><seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>Hi Paul,
>
>You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I
>am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will
>say that adequate care should be taken here.
>
>I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the
>community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and
>that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level
>with other part of the community as much as possible.
>
>As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent
>would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain
>situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give
>a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of
>GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
>
>I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's
>"consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the
>following:
>
>1. Rejected by board
>2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an
>IRP to be out of ICANN's mission.
>3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN
>mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the  outcome of an IRP)
>
>I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and
>I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
>
>Regards
>
>On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig"
><paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchc
>onsulting.com>> wrote:
>Agree completely.  The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the
>last, best final offer.  If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real
>vote
>of the members and move on.
>
>Paul
>
>Paul Rosenzweig
>paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchco
>nsulting.com>
>O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
>M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
>VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>
>Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
>Link to my PGP Key
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Burr, Becky 
>[mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>]
>Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM
>To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli at gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli at gmail.com>>;
>Schaefer, Brett
><Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>>
>Cc: <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>
><thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>;
><accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm
>unity at icann.org>>
><accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm
>unity at icann.org>>
>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and
>11
>issues
>
>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<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932>  Mobile:
>+1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / 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
>>>uss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.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:
>>>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><mailto:
>>>Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto: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-c
>>>ross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun
>>>tability-cr>
>>>oss-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.org>>
>>>[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accounta
>>>bility-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
>>>anipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>; Mueller,
>>>Milton L 
>>><milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu><mailto:milton at gatech.edu<ma
>>>ilto:milton at gatech.edu>>>
>>> Cc:
>>>accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com
>>>munity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<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
>>>
>>>http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__
>>>heritage
>http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8T
>jDmrxdYa
>>>hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGN
>>>u
>>>8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= >
>>> Von: Kavouss Arasteh
>>>[mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<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:
>>>Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>
>>> Cc: 
>>><jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:juka
>>>cz at erst.dk>>>
>>><jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:juka
>>>cz at erst.dk>>>;
>>><accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co
>>>mmunity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability
>>>-cross-com>
>>>munity at icann.org<mailto:munity at icann.org>>>
>>><accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co
>>>mmunity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<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
>>>@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert
>>><thomas at rickert.net<mailto: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
>>>ill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe
>>>Sánchez Ambía 
>>><leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe at s
>>>anchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>>;
>>>Schneider Thomas BAKOM
>>><Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>
>>><mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.ad
>>>min.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:
>>>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><mailto:
>>>Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto: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<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:
>>>Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>
>>> Cc: 
>>><jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:juka
>>>cz at erst.dk>>>
>>><jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:juka
>>>cz at erst.dk>>>;
>>><accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co
>>>mmunity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability
>>>-cross-com>
>>>munity at icann.org<mailto:munity at icann.org>>>
>>><accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co
>>>mmunity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<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:
>>>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><mailto:
>>>Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto: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 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
>>>ross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun
>>>tability-cr>
>>>oss-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.org>>
>>>[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accounta
>>>bility-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
>>>mmunity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<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<mailto:jukac
>>>z at erst.dk>>
>>>
>>>http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url
>>>?u=http-
>>>3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d=CwIG
>>>aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif
>>>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
>>>ross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun
>>>tability-cr>
>>>oss-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.org>>
>>>[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accounta
>>>bility-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
>>>munity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<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
>>>uss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.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
>>>mmunity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<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
>>>@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill
>>><Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.We
>>>ill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert
>>><thomas at rickert.net<mailto: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
>>>anchez.mx<mailto: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
>>>
>>>  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
>>>munity at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<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
>>>munity at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<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
>>>munity 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-Comm
>>unity at icann.org>
>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>_
>>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_l
>>U
>>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZX
>>Y
>>oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu
>nity at icann.org>
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu
>nity at icann.org>
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu
>nity at icann.org>
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu
>nity 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