[CCWG-ACCT] what the Board is objecting to here -

Fri Feb 19 20:04:50 UTC 2016

May I ask – if we are reopening issues can we go back to the Member model?  Or better yet, let’s go back to the original position which is that Advisory groups remain advisory and can’t be part of any decision making in the same way as SOs.

Seriously – I have never participated in a process where decisions taken by a group are so continually subject to reopening and reconsideration.  What is painful, Seun, is to see the entire process which many of us have labored over for nearly 18 months thrown out the window because an isolated Board plays the trump card at the 11th hour.  That is not bottom-up development of policy …. 

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

 <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016> 

From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 2:31 PM
To: Becky Burr <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>
Cc: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org; Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] what the Board is objecting to here -

Hi Becky,

FWIW, what you indicate below has been the understanding since the concern was raised by Bruce. Steve has also just reiterate the view as well.
However, let it be on record that others(including myself) have always raised similar concern, which even predates Bruce's comment.

I have no idea what the goal of some in this process is anymore. If indeed the goal is to have an all inclusive and balanced MS that keeps the board accountable, then I don't think it should be difficult for anyone to be convinced that having 3 out of 7 SO/AC(yes because ICANN has more than 7 *distinct* community by structure) spill the entire board of an organisation like ICANN is not the right thing to do. 

It's so painful that a few participants in the CCWG have become quite vocal in this process in a manner that tends towards intimidating others. It is my hope that the co-chairs will be careful to identify distinct views among the pool of traffic.

Regards

On 19 Feb 2016 7:56 p.m., "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> > wrote:

Just for the sake of absolute precision, I think the Board’s point is that the carve out – and hence the 3 SO/AC threshold – could apply where an IRP determines that the Board’s actions in response to GAC Advice contravene the Bylaws.  I think what worries the Board is that the notion that the Board could be recalled by 3 SO/AC combination for action that DOES NOT contravene the Bylaws.

J. Beckwith Burr 
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932 <tel:%2B1.202.533.2932>   Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>  /  <http://www.neustar.biz> neustar.biz

From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> >
Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 1:15 PM
To: 'Phil Corwin' <psc at vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com> >, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> >, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> >
Cc: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas at rickert.net <mailto:thomas at rickert.net> >, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue

+1

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com

O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> 

M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> 

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> 

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_index.php-3Foption-3Dcom-5Fcontent-26view-3Darticle-26id-3D19-26Itemid-3D9&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=guusLuvtqD1j7nKqaUhBU6PnWk15AIgAcdJMrsbOcGU&s=5fE0pJdgqOaPJb-B-U2wph0XIexH6d3Ur-C_OPbXxsM&e=> Link to my PGP Key

 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference.com_events_us16-3Futm-5Fsource-3Dsignature-26utm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fcampaign-3Dspeakers-2Dus2016&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=guusLuvtqD1j7nKqaUhBU6PnWk15AIgAcdJMrsbOcGU&s=ySzo4Jr6AxFJKi11cpljNAnB67Qew_54izXAsiuVIn0&e=> 

From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:52 PM
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> >; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> >
Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net <mailto: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>  [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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=guusLuvtqD1j7nKqaUhBU6PnWk15AIgAcdJMrsbOcGU&s=Hzg0trn6-DcJzuYFDYd60Q_xbVgd4ZG9Vk6RIh2drL8&e=> 

  _____  

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=guusLuvtqD1j7nKqaUhBU6PnWk15AIgAcdJMrsbOcGU&s=Dh4Xz9w8ZRwR6eFO0VPUy2g_0f7mTVksA5quPl1roO8&e=> 
Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto: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/20160219/6080caac/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2849 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160219/6080caac/image002-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2849 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160219/6080caac/image003-0001.png>