[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issu

[Greg Shatan]

To refine my thinking just a bit more: of course, the underlying GAC Advice
isn't being challenged, only the Board implementation of it. But the
purpose of the challenge must be to keep the Board from implementing GAC
Advice.

Greg

On Monday, February 8, 2016, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> For the convenience of counsel, I paste the proposal below, since any
> analysis needs to start with the words of the proposal under consideration.
>
>
> But the heart of the proposal is quite simple: "The GAC may not ...
> participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration
> of the exercise of a community power for the purpose of challenging or
> blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice."  Unpacking this
> sentence tends to answer many of the questions posed by Rafael.
>
> The scope of the carve-out is defined in the last few words -- it applies
> only where the "purpose of [the community power is] challenging or blocking
> the Board's implementation of GAC advice."
>
> The overlap between this scope and the two broad categories in Rafael's
> email is really quite limited.  Rafael's cases are variations on the same
> question, which can be combined as follows:
>
> Would the GAC be able to participate fully in the decision-making of the
> community mechanism on any Board decision on policy or implementation of
> (i) new gTLDs or (ii) delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs, which would
> also take into consideration standing Advice from the GAC on such issues?
>
> Given the scope of the carve-out, it is clear to me that the answer to the
> question above is "Yes, unless the purpose of the community mechanism was
> to challenge or block the Board's implementation of GAC advice."
>
> The fact that Board decisions on new gTLDs and (del/redel of) ccTLDs may
> "take into consideration" standing GAC Advice does not make every Board
> decision on gTLDs and ccTLDs an implementation of GAC advice.  More to the
> point, a challenge to a Board decision on gTLDs or ccTLDs is not a
> challenge to GAC standing advice, unless the challenge specifically seeks
> to bar the GAC advice.  The test is easy -- after the challenge, will the
> GAC advice still stand or will it be struck down?
>
> Many of the remaining questions posed by Rafael are implementation-level
> questions, which really do not have a strictly "legal" answer.  These may
> require decisions during implementation, which both the CCWG and its
> counsel can provide input on at the proper time, based on existing ICANN
> processes and the dispute resolution processes proposed in our work.  As
> such, I would not be surprised if our counsel cannot offer definitive
> responses to these questions -- and that should not be taken as an issue in
> moving forward.  It's simply the nature of the questions.
>
> I look forward to our discussion in a few hours.
>
> Greg
>
>
> 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 Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for
> the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s 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 Board’s 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
> community’s 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 Board’s 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 “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated
> Recommendation 11 calls).
>
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net> wrote:
>
> Dear Rosemary and Holly,
> This is to certify the review of the questions in the e-mail below. We do
> know this is extremely short notice, but it would be great if the answers
> could inform our discussion on this very topic next Monday, February 8th,
> 12.00 UTC. We do appreciate that time is too short for a written memo, but
> maybe one of you or team could offer initial answers during the call.
>
> I hope to be correct in assuming that you have seen the compromise
> proposal under consideration with input primarily from Kavouss and Becky.
> Also, you may find Rafael's previous questions and the answers offered by
> Becky informative. Should these not be known, please send a note to staff
> so they can forward them to you.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Kind regards,
> Thomas
>
> ---
> rickert.net
>
>
> Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail:
>
> *Von:* "Perez Galindo, Rafael" <RPEREZGA at minetur.es>
> *Datum:* 6. Februar 2016 um 11:32:55 MEZ
> *An:* James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>, "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch"
> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>, "kdrazek at verisign.com" <
> kdrazek at verisign.com>
> *Kopie:* "thomas at rickert.net" <thomas at rickert.net>, "
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Betreff:* *RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
> and 11 issues*
>
> Dear Co-chairs,
>
> Det me draw your attention to the latest developments in the discussions
> regarding Rec 11 (former ST 18), namely the carve-out system put forward by
> Becky and backed by the GNSO.
>
> While thanking Becky for this proposal, I believe we can all agree to
> acknowledge that the carve-out is not a mere adjustment, nor a tweak to
> complete or shape a package of measures, but it constitutes a major
> essential change, for it actually regulates the functioning of the EC with
> regards to the GAC, and could raise important political and legal concerns.
>
> Hence, and prior to any possible endorsement, I kindly ask that a detailed
> legal analisys of the proposed text be commissioned to the Legal assistance
> by the Co-Chairs:
>
> - who would decide whether the carve-out is applicable to a certain issue
> to be subject to a community decision
>
> - according to what standard would that decision be taken? For instance:
> is it enough if Board mentions GAC Advice in its rationale as a source for
> its decision. Or would a substantial test be applied, i.e. checked whether
> the Board decision follows GAC Advice? In the latter case, would the
> carve-out also apply if the GAC Advice is only partially followed?
>
> - what means of redress would be available for any party not in agreement
> with such a decision?
>
> - would the GAC, according to this wording, be able to participate fully
> in the decision-making of the community mechanism on the following topics?:
>
> 1. Any Board decision on policies or implementation of delegation and
> redelegation of ccTLDs, which would be taken. having regard, among others,
> general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the
> GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on delegation and redelegation of
> ccTLDs)
>
> 2. Any Board decision on policy or implementation of new gTLDs, which
> would also take into consideration, among others, general standing advice
> on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g.
> GAC principles on new gTLDs)
>
>
> Thank you and best regards
>
> Rafael
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] on behalf of James
> Gannon [james at cyberinvasion.net]
> Sent: 05 February 2016 21:15
> To: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch; kdrazek at verisign.com
> Cc: thomas at rickert.net; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and
> 11 issues
>
> Jorge,
> I think at this point the GAC needs to go back and consider the
> proposition that is on the table the the GNSO appears to be in a position
> to support.
>
> We do not have the timelines available to us to continue to argue over
> this, the GNSO has come to rough support on a position now, I feel its time
> for the GAC to go back to its own processes with this proposition to
> evaluate it. We are all aware of the GACs wants in this, but that does not
> mean that the GNSO community will agree to them as we have laid out in our
> comments to the 3rd Draft proposal.
>
> I feel that if we keep going around in circles over what the GNSO and GAC
> are potentially able to negotiate we will never end this process, and I
> think we all want to attempt to bring this to a close ASAP. I hope that the
> GAC can continue to show its flexibility and ability to compromise and work
> together with the broad community on this, no-one is setting out to
> disenfranchise any stakeholder group here, we are all trying to make this
> the least bad solution that we can all agree on. On this point no-one is
> winning and no-one is losing.
>
> -James
>
>
>
>
> On 05/02/2016, 8:03 p.m., "
> 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:
>
> Dear Keith
>
>
> Thank you very much for this full text of the gnso input.
>
>
> I'm aware if the concerns expressed by the gnso, and as I have said
> several times, I consider them legitimate and relevant, although we may
> have different opinions on their degree of impact or the means to address
> them.
>
>
> At the same time we all know that the GAC came a long way to reach a
> consensus input on the then ST18, now rec11. And such difficulties were
> based on concerns from a relevant number of governments whose concerns I
> feel we should also consider legitimate and worth consideration.
>
>
> Rec11 was then based on a compromise, which still raised concerns from
> sectors of the gnso and from a number of governments.
>
>
> I think the solution is not to privilege parts of the community in
> reaching a solution.
>
>
> We need to take on board as many stakeholders and constituencies as
> possible.
>
>
> In the last weeks we agreed, we all agreed, to take up important points
> made by the gnso on rec11: clarify that the Board has no new obligations,
> the obligation of a clear rationale, the clarification that Board decisions
> always have to be consistent with Bylaws, irrespective of the source of the
> advice on which such a decision is based.
>
>
> On rec10 we also made additions to address concerns expressed around the
> accountability review of the GAC.
>
>
> And again on rec11 -as I also said- I felt that Becky's initial proposal
> (at least as some of us understood it) was one possible means. And I think
> that if we narrow it down to the community IRP it could work.
>
>
> But to word it in such broad terms as it is now has the effect I have
> repeatedly described. Our lawyers could analyze the scooe of such an
> exception and advise us.
>
>
> If we agree that the GAC is a legitimate participant in the community
> mechanism, as we habe repeatedly and consistently agreed, then we cannot
> favour an overbroad carve-out, because the GAC would not be able to
> participate on an equal footing in the community mechanism.
>
>
> In such case we need to clarify and word the carve-out in such terms that
> it is clear that we just want a very narrow carve-out and that this will
> not prevent the GAC from normally participating in the community mechanism,
> with a few exceptions.
>
>
> If the intention is to have a broad carve-out, then we would not be able
> to agree.
>
>
> But I hope that we are in the first case.
>
>
> best
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>
>
> Am 05.02.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>:
>
>
> Thanks Jorge,
>
>
> A majority of the GNSO's constituent groups view the combination of Rec-1,
> Rec-10 and Rec-11 as "interlinked." The majority of GNSO groups (sufficient
> to reject) view ANY change of Board voting threshold for GAC consensus
> advice to be highly problematic. The GNSO's willingness to consider and
> accept Kavouss' suggested compromise of 60% is entirely dependent upon the
> further clarifications suggested by Becky in the Arasteh/Burr proposal.
>
>
> I've attached the GNSO Council comments, which are a summary of the GNSO
> groups comments, for your further review. Here are the relevant texts:
>
>
> From the GNSO Comments on Rec-1:
>
>
>   "Some in the GNSO have identified a clear link with Recommendations #10
> & #11 and are of the view that the current balance between SO/ACs needs to
> be preserved in the Empowered Community,    especially with respect to the
> GAC." [This means the status quo should be maintained -- the GAC should
> remain advisory and not have a decisional role.]
>
>
> From the GNSO Comment on Rec-10:
>
>
>   "There are some concerns within the GNSO with the top down nature of
> accountability reviews, and the exemption of the GAC from this community
> requirement. It is also troubling that the GAC, further    empowered if
> Recommendations #1 and #11 are adopted, would be exempted from the same
> periodic reviews as the other SO/ACs. All participants in the Community
> Mechanism should be subject to    equivalent accountability reviews."
>
>
> From the GNSO Comment on Rec-11:
>
>
>   "There is broad opposition to this recommendation as written. Most SG/Cs
> do not support the proposal to raise the threshold for a Board vote to
> reject GAC advice. All expressed serious concerns over the
>
>   lack of specificity in the recommendation in relation to the
> requirements for GAC advice (such as the provision of rationale) and the
> possibility that this recommendation, if adopted, could unduly change
>    the nature of the Board-GAC relationship and/or the position of the GAC
> vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs also believe that any CCWG
> recommendation on this topic should retain the current flexibility    in
> the Bylaws where the Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in
> order to reject GAC advice."
>
>
>   "IPC, NCSG and the Registrars SG expressly objected to changing and
> specifying the threshold for Board action; the Registries SG and ISPCP
> Constituency did not object expressly but highlighted significant
>    concerns about the implications of such a change. The Registries SG
> stated it was unlikely to support the 2/3 threshold for Board action unless
> three additional requirements (provision of a rationale,        consistency
> with ICANN bylaws and within GAC scope, and defined consensus) applied to
> such GAC Advice. While BC and NPOC supported the change, both nevertheless
> also noted concerns over the    implications, with the BC's support
> expressly conditioned upon certain qualifications being made to the
> proposal."
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Keith
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch]
>
> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 2:16 PM
>
> To: Drazek, Keith
>
> Cc: RPEREZGA at minetur.es; jbladel at godaddy.com; thomas at rickert.net;
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and
> 11 issues
>
>
> Dear Keith
>
>
> I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a
> bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements?
>
>
> The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right?
>
>
> Best
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>
>
> Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>:
>
>
> Dear Jorge,
>
>
> Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public
> comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations.
>
>
> The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd
> draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to
> ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final
> report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions,
> this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does
> not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it.
>
>
> If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to
> object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the
> 11th hour and 57th minute.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Keith
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch]
>
> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM
>
> To: Drazek, Keith
>
> Cc: RPEREZGA at minetur.es; jbladel at godaddy.com; thomas at rickert.net;
>
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
>
> and 11 issues
>
>
> Dear Keith
>
>
> This is an interesting question.
>
>
> But what we have on the table is the third draft report.
>
>
> This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a
>
> higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the
>
> consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some
>
> gnso members (who have proposed this)
>
>
> best
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>
>
> Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com<
> mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>:
>
>
> We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no
> formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better
> question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to
> the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on
> our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the
> Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent.  Multiple GAC
> members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as
> clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position
> either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will
> the GAC reach consensus to object?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
> From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA at minetur.es]
>
> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM
>
> To: James M. Bladel;
>
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>;
>
> Drazek, Keith
>
> Cc: thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>;
>
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c
>
> ommunity 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-c
>
> ommunity 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 on
> behalf of Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> %20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>"
>
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> %20on%20behalf%20of%0bJorge.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%3cmailto: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<
> mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com%3cmailto: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 redbr
>
> an
>
> chc
>
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> %3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchc%0b>>onsulting.com<
> http://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 redbra
>
> nc
>
> hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rose
>
> nz
>
> weig at redbranchco>
>
> nsulting.com<http://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:B
>
> ec ky.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:olgacavall
>
> i@ gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli at gmail.com>>>;
>
> Schaefer, Brett
>
> <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto:
>
> Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>>>
>
> Cc:
>
> <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.n
>
> et
>
> %3cmailto:thomas at rickert.net>>>
>
> <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.n
>
> et
>
> %3cmailto:thomas at rickert.net>>>;
>
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross
>
> -c
>
> omm
>
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili
>
> ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity at icann.org<mailto:unity at icann.org>>>
>
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross
>
> -c
>
> omm
>
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili
>
> ty-cross-comm%0b>>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://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%3cmailto: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<mai
>
> lt
>
> o:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org%3cmailto: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:
>
> ka
>
> vouss.arasteh at gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>><mailto
>
> :k
>
> avo
>
> <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<
> mailto:uss.arasteh at gmail.com%3cmailto: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 wh
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160208/d2fbd3d6/attachment-0001.html>