[CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue

[Seun Ojedeji]

On 19 Feb 2016 7:21 p.m., "James Gannon" <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
>
> Unless the GAC can present us with a consensus objection or some form of
wholesome proposal reflecting the full breath of membership of the GAC I
think we need to move forward noting the objections of the 11 GAC members.
>
SO: While I am not GAC, I think the statement above is uncalled for. Let's
just not start doing the maths, otherwise I can assure you that 1 govt
could claim to have gazillion individuals behind it.  One could also prove
that if GNSO or any other decision making SO/AC in the empowered community
for instance apply the same definition of consensus that GAC has they will
be in the same position GAC finds itself right now.
I don't think it's at all fair to leverage on the fact that GAC may not be
able to achieve consensus to create an imbalance in the multistakeholder
model.

> The board is free to vote against our proposal. Do not let this 11th hour
rush to push the CCWG into a corner move us from our long and hopefully
fruitful journey.
>
SO: I am also not interested in delaying the proposal any further as well
but considering the "carve out" came at the 10th hour, we need to be
careful about taking it through to the 12th without considering its full
implication.

Regards

> -James
>
> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
> Date: Friday 19 February 2016 at 6:15 p.m.
> To: 'Phil Corwin' <psc at vlaw-dc.com>, 'Greg Shatan' <
gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> Cc: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas at rickert.net>, "
accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
>
> +1
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:52 PM
> To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; Kavouss Arasteh <
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>;
accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
>
>
>
> 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/Direct
>
> 202-559-8750/Fax
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160219/1374e238/attachment.html>