[CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue

[Alan Greenberg]

I need some clarity from the Board.

I can read Steve's message in two ways.

1. They are sticking to their previous statement which I understood 
to mean accepting the "carve-out", but not the reduction in the 
threshhold to remove the Board. That stays at 4 (and requires 
unanimity) unless there is a successful IRP).

2. They are now withdrawing their previous position and rejecting the 
carve-out excluding the GAC from participating in Community Powers 
exercised in response to Board action/inaction over GAC advice.

Steve?

Alan

At 19/02/2016 12:37 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>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 
><<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>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 
><<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>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
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>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/d95aeeab/attachment.html>