[CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs

Sun Feb 21 21:12:57 UTC 2016

Minority Statement

Dear All,

I have read and read the Minority Statement made by A GAC MEMBERS in CCWG
which is now supported by 11 other governments.

There serval messages in that Statement

GAC Situation at this very moment

   1.

   In future only a full Consensus  Advice in the absence of any formal
   objection would be considered by the Board which is quite different from
   existing situation . This make it very probable that as of the date of the
   transition coming in to force , *NO* *MORE GAC ADVICE WOULD  BE POSSIBLE
   FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE Board due to the fact that, no matter how much
   efforts be made by 154 existing GAC Members, one single  Government  on any
   ground as it so wishes could block that* Advice not to become eligible
   for consideration by the Board. This is a new working method that
   enshrining a clear VETO to null out efforts of the rest of the GAC members
   in this regard. This is resulted from the proposed ST18

*Consequently the so-called special privilege repeatedly referred to  by
others would in fact very rarely happens *

   1.

   The 2/3 threshold for the rejection of the GAC Advice by the Board was
   proposed  but was not accepted unless the existing Simple Majority is
   retained  However, if instead of either of Simple Majority a 60%
   threshold is taken, it should be  combined with  the so-called *CARE-OUT
   CONCEPT* .This implies that on the one hand the probability of having
   GAC advice is limited to the most lowest level , almost zero probability
    based on the  argument mentioned in 1) above ,however, even if on a
   rare care there would be a GAC Advice  with full consensus, that advice
   may be rejected by 60% of the Board’s Member
   2.

   Should the Board agrees to the Initial (very improbable occurrence of
   GAC Advice), or if the initial advice is rejected but then was accepted as
   results of negotiation of the Board with GAC any one in the community could
   invoke IRP or just simply make a petition to recall the entire Board with
   only 3 SO/AC in favour excluding by alleging that Board acceptance of
   Advice was inconsistent with its mission or Bylaws, or Article of
   Incorporation. As results of application of so-called carve-out
   approach/concept  GAC would excluded to exercise its legitimate right to
   participate in the decision making  and defend the case
   3.

   These unfavorable situation does not exist for any SO and AC at al
   4.

   in view of the above GAC  has lost the battle in three DIFFERENT  fronts

*6             Some other communities said that *in exchange of what GAC  lost
,it  has  gained the ability to exercise the community power and become a
decisional making community in some areas.

7             Such empowerment which did not exist for any SO/AC now is
given to every SOs /ACs

8             That is not totally correct due to the following

8.1          Some of the power is now waived as results of application of
so-called Carve-out

8.2          GAC has not decided and may never decide to exercise those
powers atall,

9.            In view of the above, there is a need to give a fresh look
and reconsider the situation.

10. Based on the above understanding from the Minority Statement, wouldn’t
be possible that the utmost efforts be made to find a win-win situation for
every SO/AC?

 11. Any of us is subject to make a mistake or misconception. The important
issue is to duly correct the mistake .

Never is late. There is always an opportunity to remedy the problem.

However, it requires good will, spirit of collaboration, mutual
understanding and freindly and healthy enviroment for resolution of the
problem

*Pelasse kindly be friendly and kindly avoid demonstrating any emotion and
fully respect the IVCANN ETHIC *

*You may disagree or agree but pls avoid and offensive message *

Regards

Kavouss

2016-02-21 20:58 GMT+01:00 Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>:

> All,
> Eberhard is free to express his views on the co-chairs. We all have our
> views.
>
> Let me just be clear:
>
> We have described and summarized the current situation with our statement.
> We have not reopened a discussion nor predetermined the outcome of such
> discusion.
>
> Given the situation, there are multiple options for the group to consider
> and to proceed on. These options will have different (potential)
> consequences and we did not and do not deem it appropriate for the
> co-chairs to make such determination without consulting with the CCWG. This
> consultation will take place on Tuesday.
>
> Kind regards,
> Thomas Rickert
>
> ---
> rickert.net
>
>
> Am 21.02.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig <
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>:
>
> I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization
> of the Co-Chairs).  But he is completely right that having declared a
> Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not
> good management.
>
>
>
> For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will
> push to reopen the following:
>
>
>
> 1)      Change from Single Member to Single Designator
>
> 2)      GAC advice gets a 60% threshold
>
> 3)      ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all
>
>
>
> All of those are things that I’m unhappy with.  So if the Board gets to
> intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the
> timeline), let’s just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we?
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <paul.rosenzweigesq 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
> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>
>
> <image001.png>
> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016>
>
>
>
> *From:* epilisse at gmail.com [mailto:epilisse at gmail.com <epilisse at gmail.com>]
>
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM
> *To:* CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Cc:* Lisse Eberhard <directors at omadhina.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
>
>
>
> I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would
> then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting.
>
> In any case let me place the current state on the record:
>
> Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or
> (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly.
>
> But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it
> doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather)
> and be done with it.
>
> These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced
> professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a
> living.
>
> Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and
> very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what
> we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot
> down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating
> object and add minority statement.
>
> In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to
> anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority
> Statement and we need a new time line.
>
> Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but
> that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the
> Chartering Organizations sort out this mess.
>
>
> el
>
>
> --
> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini
>
>
> On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>, wrote:
>
> +2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be
> extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather
> than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are
> free to return to our former positions.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160221/8d59823d/attachment-0001.html>