[CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue

Fri Feb 19 18:23:38 UTC 2016

I feel like I’m in the movie Ground Hog Day and every day is a 1 am ICANN call.

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 1:17 PM
To: Phil Corwin
Cc: Thomas Rickert; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue

Dear All,

There is big difference between providing the rights for GAC as decisional making entity and to exercise those rights

GAC has not decided on whether they wish to exercise that right or not,

Supermajority and reconsideration of rejected Recommendation of other constituencies and rejection of GAC Advice should have the same threshold

If ONE GETS THE BENEF OF 2/3 MAJORITY the other should ALSO have the same. BENEFIT

If GAC advice could be rejected by the Board with simple Majority the Recommendation of other entities SHOULD also be rejected by simple majority.

If the Board gets into negotiation with GAC after it has rejected its advice, they also get into negotiation with other constituencies if their Recommendations were rejected .

Currently there is a full imbalance between the PDP Recommendations treatments and GAC advice

The PDP Recommendations developed by supermajority in some constituencies or by so-called SOFT CONSENSUS could only be rejected by the Board with 2/3 MAJORITY BUT GAC advice ,normally decided by consensus could only be rejected by SIMPLE MAJORITY

This is unfair.

However, after rejection with such an imbalance criteria both cases could be negotiated by Board and the two constituencies.

I do not agree with the argument submitted with the risk that those people  submitting such argument   may disserve the ethic of correspondence and going out of the limit and not observing mutual respect

Kavouss

2016-02-19 18:51 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>:
Greg:

Assuming that the new Board position is indeed a response to a minority position of a few GAC members, I am in full agreement that it “should serve as a warning to us all”.

Indeed, it emphasizes exactly why the GAC should not be able to block the community’s ability to hold the Board accountable for implementing GAC consensus advice that the community feels is outside the scope of the Bylaws or Mission Statement.

Best. Philip

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct
202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax
202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM
To: Kavouss Arasteh
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>; Thomas Rickert
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue

It is alarming that a few GAC members could seek to undo a carefully balanced compromise.  And even more alarming that those few GAC members could so quickly trigger a Board intervention.

The carve-out is balanced against the concerns of other stakeholders with regard to (i) the proposed supermajority threshold for Board rejection of GAC advice and (ii) the GAC's overall role as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community, rather than its traditional advisory capacity.  The carve-out itself underwent a compromise, requiring the Community to go through an IRP before exercising the power of Board recall.

When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well.

Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings?  Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out?

I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all.

Greg

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message
Regards
Kavouss

2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>:
Dear Co-chairs
You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon.
This is an ALARMING SITUATION ,
If there is no consensus means there is no consensus ,
We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one.
Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such
If a mistake has occurred we should repair it .
Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator .
THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL
Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls
Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold  and rediscuss that.
You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon
Regards
Kavouss

________________________________
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
heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>
_______________________________________________
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://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>

________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160219/5d76af18/attachment-0001.html>