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

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Fri Feb 5 17:29:33 UTC 2016 

FWIW I have not yet concluded it disenfranchises anyone but I said I would
not like that to happen and I am hoping that (as a form of question)
Becky's proposal is not doing that. You seem to have confidently confirmed
that it doesn't by referencing the 2/3 which is not a relevant part that
helps answer my question. It will have been helpful if you confirm that a
combination of the 3 items I listed would be possible under the proposed
text.

For the record, I personally am not comfortable with the 2/3 clause, not
that it would really make any significant difference in the rejection of
GAC's advice(if board indeed wants to reject such "consensus" advice) but
that it sets a formal vote requirement specifically for GAC advice. I would
have still had the same concern if it were 50%/60% or 1/3, as I believe the
board's internal process to making decisions should apply. Overall I have
no strong opinion, nor do I care much about this if board is okay by it.

Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:57 p.m., "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:

> 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> 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> 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
>> 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: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz]
>> Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM
>> To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli at gmail.com>; Schaefer, Brett
>> <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
>> Cc: <thomas at rickert.net> <thomas at rickert.net>;
>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>> <accountability-cross-community 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  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz
>> <http://www.neustar.biz>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <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> 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>> 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>>
>> >><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-cr
>> >>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>>; Mueller,
>> >>Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
>> >> Cc:
>> >>accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:
>> accountability-cross-comm
>> >>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_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa
>>
>> >>hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGNu
>> >>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>>
>> >> Cc: <jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>>
>> >><jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>>;
>> >><accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:
>> accountability-cross-com
>> >>munity at icann.org>>
>> >><accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:
>> accountability-cross-com
>> >>munity at icann.org>>; Becky Burr
>> >><Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>; Thomas Rickert
>> >><thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>; Mathieu Weill
>> >><Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>>; León Felipe
>> >>Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>;
>> >>Schneider Thomas BAKOM
>> >><Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch<mailto: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>>
>> >><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]
>> >> Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25
>> >> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
>> >><Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
>> >> Cc: <jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>>
>> >><jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>>;
>> >><accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:
>> accountability-cross-com
>> >>munity at icann.org>>
>> >><accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:
>> accountability-cross-com
>> >>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>>
>> >><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-cr
>> >>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-com
>> >>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>
>> >>
>> >>http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
>> >>3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk
>> &d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif
>>
>> >>zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWw
>> >>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-cr
>> >>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-comm
>> >>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://www.neustar.biz>
>> >>
>> >> From: Kavouss Arasteh
>> >><kavouss.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-com
>> >>munity at icann.org>>, Becky Burr
>> >><becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill
>> >><Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert
>> >><thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez
>> >>Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.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-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_
>>
>> >>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO
>>
>> >>ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
>> >>
>> >><
>> 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
>>
>> >>OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&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_
>>
>> >>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO
>>
>> >>ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>
>> >>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>
>> >>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO
>>
>> >>ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
>> >>
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> >Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
>>
>> >listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU
>>
>> >Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXY
>> >oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160205/31d9683f/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list