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

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Marilyn
Tks
Well done
Kavouss

2016-02-19 19:16 GMT+01:00 Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>:

> Paul, I am a participant on the list.
> I am also a part of the GNSO, as a member of the BC.
>
> I am not sure that there is a single GNSO view.
>
> Each Constituency will have to discuss and determine.
>
> I am studying all options.  And I am not laying down any marker.
> After all, if I had, or anyone else had, back in 1998, ICANN would not
> even exist.
>
> We have done pretty well by not laying down markers but just stumbling in
> the right
> direction.
>
> Let's keep up that effort.
>
> I know all of you who have done so much work are tired and worn out.
> BUT, there is so much progress. It is amazing.
> Let's not lose our willingness to keep up the right direction at this
> point.
>
> M
>
> > From: paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> > To: steve.crocker at icann.org; Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr;
> leonfelipe at sanchez.mx; thomas at rickert.net
> > Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 12:41:05 -0500
> > CC: icann-board at icann.org; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out
>
> >
> > Just to lay down a marker, so that silence is not taken as assent, this
> > proposal from the Board is completely unacceptable to me and I suspect to
> > most if not all of the gNSO.
> >
> > Right now I am so angry at the Board's last minute interference that if I
> > say anything further it will be far too intemperate.
> > Paul
> >
> > Paul Rosenzweig
> > paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> > O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> > M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> > Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> > Link to my PGP Key
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve.crocker at icann.org]
> > Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 11:28 AM
> > To: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
> > <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>; Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>
> > Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker at icann.org>; Icann-board ICANN
> > <icann-board at icann.org>; Accountability Community
> > <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out
> >
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160219/7850e44f/attachment.html>