[CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out

[Steve Crocker]

Kavouss,

Thanks.

Steve

On Feb 19, 2016, at 12:00 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Steve,
> I am very greatful to you raising this important question at this stage.
> The curve out issue is troublesome for several people ,in particular several GAC memebrs. I just raised this growning concerns and some people saying the I am the only one woulded and I have to breat for an hour and do something else ,a very unfreuindly statement from colleagues about me.
> At this very important srtage of the work ,we must hold on publishing the report and stop sending it to the chartering organizatiobns and try to rediscuss the matter on the next call on 26 Februray with a view to find an acceptable solution.
> For the time being 11 countries expressed their concerns about the carve-ot and there will certainly be more at GAC next call on 29 as well as in the ICANN 55 GAC meeting .
> THE CO -CHAIRS ARE STROGLY URGED TO THINK FOR SOME TIME BEFORE DOING SOMETHIBNG WHICH MAY NOT BE REPAIRABLE
> Carve-out as developped is a negative point in the process .Regards
> Kavouss
> 
> 2016-02-19 17:27 GMT+01:00 Steve Crocker <steve.crocker at icann.org>:
> CCWG Colleagues,
> 
> The Board has a serious and continued concern about the issues being raised that may result in the reduction of the GAC’s ability to participate in community decision making. This is most noticeable in the question of thresholds for board removal, however this is not an issue about removal or even thresholds, it is one part of the community being (or perceiving that it is being) sidelined. The Board’s concerns with this issue are not about Board removal, but about maintaining the balanced multistakeholder model.
> 
> The Board is against any changes to the long established equilibrium and fairness among the different stakeholders within ICANN. The Board has long supported a threshold of four participants for Board removal in the ultimate escalation method proposed by the CCWG.  Selecting one portion of the ICANN community and removing them from the equation - just through the ability to say that the community is unhappy with the acceptance of GAC advice that is within ICANN’s bylaws - raises significant concerns about how the multistakeholder model, and the ultimate stability of ICANN as an organization, can be maintained. This carved out exception undercuts the established role of governments within the multi stakeholder process, and could introduce new issues with the acceptance of ICANN’s model undermining the work of the CCWG.
> 
> We understand that there are concerns with this path from within other parts of ICANN community, including members of the GAC and ALAC. The best course, in our opinion, would be a careful and objective discussion of the whole matter of how advice from ALL parties is appropriately considered within ICANN.  If there is a graceful way to remove this matter from the immediate pressure of the deadline of submitting this proposal and make it a priority matter for either the implementation phase or Work Stream 2, we think there will be a solution which is genuinely good for everyone.
> 
> We encourage you to share the CCWG’s proposal with the Chartering Organizations while the dialog on this outstanding point continues.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Steve Crocker
> Chair, ICANN Board of Directors
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160219/a9aaddf1/attachment.html>