[CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue

Fri Feb 19 18:30:38 UTC 2016

Dear All,
Have we ever received a consensus objection or some form of wholesome
proposal reflecting the full breath of membership of the  other
constituencies  I think we need to  reflect and forward correctly .
Who knows till end of ICANN 55 howmany objections will be tableed?
Regards
Kavouss

2016-02-19 19:23 GMT+01:00 Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>:

> 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>:
>
> 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 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
>
> *202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
>
> *202-255-6172 <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] *On Behalf Of *Greg
> Shatan
> *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM
> *To:* Kavouss Arasteh
> *Cc:* 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> 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>:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - 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/e237c249/attachment-0001.html>