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

Matthew Shears mshears at cdt.org
Fri Feb 5 19:06:20 UTC 2016


+ 1

On 05/02/2016 10:35, Burr, Becky wrote:
> It is an enormous overstatement to say that this would preclude the 
> GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases.  The GAC can 
> participate in all discussions, debates, considerations, etc.  In a 
> limited number of situations involving GAC Advice (and we know 
> precisely what that is from the scorecards, etc.), the GAC would not 
> be permitted to participate as a decision maker.  Keep in mind, we 
> haven’t even really been told if the GAC wants to participate as a 
> decision maker in the first place.
>
> *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: "<Perez Galindo>", Rafael <RPEREZGA at minetur.es 
> <mailto:RPEREZGA at minetur.es>>
> Date: Friday, February 5, 2016 at 12:53 PM
> To: James Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>, 
> "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>>, 
> Keith Drazek <kdrazek at verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>
> Cc: "thomas at rickert.net <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>" 
> <thomas at rickert.net <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>, Accountability 
> Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 
> and 11 issues
>
> It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into 
> account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in 
> the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an 
> extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" 
> system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in 
> the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either.
>
> Best
> Rafael
>
>
>
>
> Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: "James M. Bladel"
> Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00)
> To: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>, 
> kdrazek at verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>
> Cc: thomas at rickert.net <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>, 
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 
> and 11 issues
>
> 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 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on
> behalf of Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch 
> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>"
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <mailto: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><mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com> 
> <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com%3E>>:
> >
> >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><mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> 
> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com%3E>> 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 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 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 
> <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz%3Cmailto: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><mailto:olgacavalli at gmail.com> 
> <mailto:olgacavalli at gmail.com%3E>>;
> >Schaefer, Brett
> ><Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org 
> <mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org> 
> <mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org%3E>>
> >Cc: <thomas at rickert.net 
> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net><mailto:thomas at rickert.net> 
> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net%3E>>
> ><thomas at rickert.net 
> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net><mailto:thomas at rickert.net> 
> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net%3E>>;
> ><accountability-cross-community at icann.org 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm
> >unity at icann.org <mailto:unity at icann.org>>>
> ><accountability-cross-community at icann.org 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm
> >unity at icann.org <mailto: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><mailto:olgacavalli at gmail.com> 
> <mailto:olgacavalli at gmail.com%3E>> 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><mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org> 
> <mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org%3E>>
> >>>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:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com><mailto:kavo 
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com%3E%3Cmailto:kavo>
> >>>uss.arasteh at gmail.com 
> <mailto:uss.arasteh at gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> 
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com%3E%3E>> 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 
> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3E%3Cmailto>:
> >>>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%3E%3E>>
> >>><Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch 
> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto 
> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3E%3Cmailto>:
> >>>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%3E%3E>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
> >>>
> >>> This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to 
> (highlights
> >>>are mine, but text is unchanged):
> >>>
> >>> ==
> >>>
> >>> Von:
> >>>accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-c
> >>>ross-community-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto:ross-community-bounces at icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun 
> <mailto:accountability-cr%3Cmailto:accoun>
> >>>tability-cr>
> >>>oss-community-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.org> 
> <mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.org%3E>>
> >>>[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accounta 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org%3Cmailto:accounta>
> >>>bility-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto: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:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshat 
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3E%3Cmailto:gregshat>
> >>>anipc at gmail.com 
> <mailto: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><mailto:milton at gatech.edu<ma 
> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu%3E%3Cmailto:milton at gatech.edu%3Cma>
> >>>ilto:milton at gatech.edu <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>>>
> >>> Cc:
> >>>accountability-cross-community at icann.org 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com
> >>>munity at icann.org 
> <mailto:munity at icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-comm%3Cmailto:accountability>
> >>>-cross-comm>
> >>>unity at icann.org <mailto: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.org-26lt-3B&d=CwQF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=1bY7pJ1eVwVE3lTyis-k26WvheQQAP0q2-i6pBpz0k4&s=9E_NKkEXue00p1w50fTL-b2KW4jVSR4duDppZ9QOXHo&e=>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__
> >>>heritage
> >http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8T 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__-26gt-3B-26gt-3B.org-5F-26d-3DCwIGaQ-26c-3DMOptNlVtIETeDALC-5FlULrw-26r-3D62cJFOifzm6X-5FGRlaq8Mo8T&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=1bY7pJ1eVwVE3lTyis-k26WvheQQAP0q2-i6pBpz0k4&s=xwKODPJMNcMeVuP0WZLP3YZc2WDFBPz7PigoSxwiNbE&e=>
> >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 
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com%3Cmailto: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 
> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3E%3Cmailto>:
> >>>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%3E%3E>>
> >>> Cc:
> >>><jukacz at erst.dk 
> <mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:juka 
> <mailto:jukacz at erst.dk%3E%3Cmailto:jukacz at erst.dk%3Cmailto:juka>
> >>>cz at erst.dk <mailto:cz at erst.dk>>>>
> >>><jukacz at erst.dk 
> <mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:juka 
> <mailto:jukacz at erst.dk%3E%3Cmailto:jukacz at erst.dk%3Cmailto:juka>
> >>>cz at erst.dk <mailto:cz at erst.dk>>>>;
> >>><accountability-cross-community at icann.org 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-co
> >>>mmunity at icann.org 
> <mailto:mmunity at icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-com%3Cmailto:accountability>
> >>>-cross-com>
> >>>munity at icann.org <mailto:munity at icann.org><mailto:munity at icann.org>>>
> >>><accountability-cross-community at icann.org 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-co
> >>>mmunity at icann.org 
> <mailto:mmunity at icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-com%3Cmailto:accountability>
> >>>-cross-com>
> >>>munity at icann.org 
> <mailto: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 at neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr 
> <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz%3E%3Cmailto: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 
> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net%3E%3Cmailto:thomas at rickert.net>
> >>><mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill
> >>><Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr 
> <mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.We 
> <mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr%3E%3Cmailto:Mathieu.We>
> >>>ill at afnic.fr 
> <mailto: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 sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe at s 
> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx%3E%3Cmailto: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.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.ad 
> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch%3Cmailto: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 
> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3E%3Cmailto>:
> >>>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%3E%3E>>
> >>><Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch 
> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto 
> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3E%3Cmailto>:
> >>>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%3E%3E>> 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 
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com%3Cmailto: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 
> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3E%3Cmailto>:
> >>>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%3E%3E>>
> >>> Cc:
> >>><jukacz at erst.dk 
> <mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:juka 
> <mailto:jukacz at erst.dk%3E%3Cmailto:jukacz at erst.dk%3Cmailto:juka>
> >>>cz at erst.dk <mailto:cz at erst.dk>>>>
> >>><jukacz at erst.dk 
> <mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:juka 
> <mailto:jukacz at erst.dk%3E%3Cmailto:jukacz at erst.dk%3Cmailto:juka>
> >>>cz at erst.dk <mailto:cz at erst.dk>>>>;
> >>><accountability-cross-community at icann.org 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-co
> >>>mmunity at icann.org 
> <mailto:mmunity at icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-com%3Cmailto:accountability>
> >>>-cross-com>
> >>>munity at icann.org <mailto:munity at icann.org><mailto:munity at icann.org>>>
> >>><accountability-cross-community at icann.org 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-co
> >>>mmunity at icann.org 
> <mailto:mmunity at icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-com%3Cmailto:accountability>
> >>>-cross-com>
> >>>munity at icann.org <mailto: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 
> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3E%3Cmailto>:
> >>>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%3E%3E>>
> >>><Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch 
> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto 
> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3E%3Cmailto>:
> >>>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%3E%3E>> 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-cross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-c
> >>>ross-community-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto:ross-community-bounces at icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun 
> <mailto:accountability-cr%3Cmailto:accoun>
> >>>tability-cr>
> >>>oss-community-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.org> 
> <mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.org%3E>>
> >>>[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accounta 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org%3Cmailto:accounta>
> >>>bility-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto: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-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-co
> >>>mmunity at icann.org 
> <mailto:mmunity at icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-com%3Cmailto:accountability>
> >>>-cross-com>
> >>>munity at icann.org <mailto: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:jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukac 
> <mailto:jukacz at erst.dk%3Cmailto:jukac>
> >>>z at erst.dk <mailto:z at erst.dk>>>
> >>>
> >>>http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk-26lt-3Bhttps-3A__urldefense.proofpoint.com_v2_url&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=1bY7pJ1eVwVE3lTyis-k26WvheQQAP0q2-i6pBpz0k4&s=4_Ck57aSZJETIAL2zPugQlxW9tOP1cqizlEjkzjz83s&e=>
> >>>?u=http-
> >>>3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d=CwIG 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__3A-5F-5Fwww.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk-26gt-3B-26amp-3Bd-3DCwIG&d=CwQF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=1bY7pJ1eVwVE3lTyis-k26WvheQQAP0q2-i6pBpz0k4&s=TqbGbjnIOtmj5l7o7QkzNQl8xTmky5a2-kfPsFkZvYk&e=>
> >>>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-cross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-c
> >>>ross-community-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto:ross-community-bounces at icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:accoun 
> <mailto:accountability-cr%3Cmailto:accoun>
> >>>tability-cr>
> >>>oss-community-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.org> 
> <mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.org%3E>>
> >>>[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accounta 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org%3Cmailto:accounta>
> >>>bility-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto: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-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com
> >>>munity at icann.org 
> <mailto:munity at icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountability 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-comm%3Cmailto:accountability>
> >>>-cross-comm>
> >>>unity at icann.org <mailto: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 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neustar.biz-26gt-3B-26lt-3Bhttp-3A__www.neustar.biz&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=1bY7pJ1eVwVE3lTyis-k26WvheQQAP0q2-i6pBpz0k4&s=rdgLxZ8PhuGWsw8OvpgxWAb9-vlR5UIOuSJZndE3j0M&e=>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Kavouss Arasteh
> >>><kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com 
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com><mailto:kavo 
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com%3E%3Cmailto:kavo>
> >>>uss.arasteh at gmail.com 
> <mailto:uss.arasteh at gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> 
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com%3E%3E>>
> >>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM
> >>> To: Accountability Community
> >>><accountability-cross-community at icann.org 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-co
> >>>mmunity at icann.org 
> <mailto:mmunity at icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-com%3Cmailto:accountability>
> >>>-cross-com>
> >>>munity at icann.org 
> <mailto: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 at neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr 
> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz%3E%3Cmailto: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.Weill at afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.We 
> <mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr%3E%3Cmailto:Mathieu.We>
> >>>ill at afnic.fr 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net%3E%3Cmailto: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 sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe at s 
> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx%3E%3Cmailto: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-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com
> >>>munity at icann.org 
> <mailto:munity at icann.org>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability 
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3Cmailto:Accountability>
> >>>-Cross-Comm>
> >>>unity at icann.org <mailto: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-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com
> >>>munity at icann.org 
> <mailto:munity at icann.org>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountability 
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3Cmailto:Accountability>
> >>>-Cross-Comm>
> >>>unity at icann.org <mailto: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-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com
> >>>munity at icann.org <mailto: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-Community 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_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-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu
> >nity at icann.org <mailto:nity at icann.org>>
> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=1bY7pJ1eVwVE3lTyis-k26WvheQQAP0q2-i6pBpz0k4&s=Vr4YKyexqu6BmwmD38xKGvFwLMrQXusrZ2Ndt38_JWs&e=>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org 
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu
> >nity at icann.org <mailto:nity at icann.org>>
> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=1bY7pJ1eVwVE3lTyis-k26WvheQQAP0q2-i6pBpz0k4&s=Vr4YKyexqu6BmwmD38xKGvFwLMrQXusrZ2Ndt38_JWs&e=>
> >_______________________________________________
> >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org 
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu
> >nity at icann.org <mailto:nity at icann.org>>
> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=1bY7pJ1eVwVE3lTyis-k26WvheQQAP0q2-i6pBpz0k4&s=Vr4YKyexqu6BmwmD38xKGvFwLMrQXusrZ2Ndt38_JWs&e=>
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org 
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu
> >nity at icann.org <mailto:nity at icann.org>>
> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=1bY7pJ1eVwVE3lTyis-k26WvheQQAP0q2-i6pBpz0k4&s=Vr4YKyexqu6BmwmD38xKGvFwLMrQXusrZ2Ndt38_JWs&e=>
> >_______________________________________________
> >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org 
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=1bY7pJ1eVwVE3lTyis-k26WvheQQAP0q2-i6pBpz0k4&s=Vr4YKyexqu6BmwmD38xKGvFwLMrQXusrZ2Ndt38_JWs&e=>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org 
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=1bY7pJ1eVwVE3lTyis-k26WvheQQAP0q2-i6pBpz0k4&s=Vr4YKyexqu6BmwmD38xKGvFwLMrQXusrZ2Ndt38_JWs&e=>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- 

Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987

CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160205/77cc54da/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list