[CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Fri Feb 19 19:09:34 UTC 2016 

I support diplomacy. But in this case, I am being 
asked to have the ALAC support some modification 
in the proposal. I can accept that and we might 
even agree. But I need to understand what modification it is.

Ultimately we will need to ratify (or not) specific wording.

Alan

At 19/02/2016 01:39 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>Dear Alan,
>Steve is not only a highly expert in technical 
>matter and management but is also a diplomat.
>Please kindly read ihis comments without any attempt to decomposite it.
>I do not believe Steve make such decomposite action
>Regards
>Kavouss
>
>2016-02-19 19:32 GMT+01:00 James Gannon 
><<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>james at cyberinvasion.net>:
>In that case we miss all our timelines and might 
>as well just throw everything that we have 
>worked for out the window. This is a tactic, and 
>one which we must reject and move forward as planned.
>
>-jg
>
>From: Kavouss Arasteh 
><<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>Date: Friday 19 February 2016 at 6:30 p.m.
>To: James Gannon <<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>james at cyberinvasion.net>
>Cc: Phil Corwin 
><<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>psc at vlaw-dc.com>, 
>Thomas Rickert 
><<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>thomas at rickert.net>, 
>"<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>accountability-cross-community at icann.org" 
><<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>
>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
>
>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 
><<mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>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:<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> 
>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; 
><mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>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 
><<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>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
>
><tel:202-559-8597>202-559-8597/Direct
>
><tel:202-559-8750>202-559-8750/Fax
>
><tel:202-255-6172>202-255-6172/cell
>
>
>
>Twitter: @VlawDC
>
>
>
>"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>
>
>
>From:<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> 
>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: 
><mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>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 <<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
>
>
>
>
>
>----------
>BrettSchaefer
>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
><tel:202-608-6097>202-608-6097
><http://heritage.org/>heritage.org
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>
>
>No virus found in this message.
>Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com>www.avg.com
>Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/fa1ec166/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list