<div dir="ltr"><div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:14pt">Dear Paul.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:14pt">Thank you very much for your kind words and your judgment ??</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:14pt">I have fully understood
the entire process as I have been involved in another entity which also applied
IRP.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:14pt">Perhaps I was
not clear in my previous message.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:14pt">What I said
was there should be a process to clearly distinguish between those allegations
which merits to be further pursued and those which would not merit.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:14pt">I do not
think that the purpose of IRP is that every day tens of allegations based on
just a <span> </span>personal judgement of an
individual without any valid reasons and without any foundation <span> </span>invoke IRP,unless we create occupation of the
panelist and those will get those position .This would give rise to misuse of
the IRP.</span></p><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:14pt">Kavouss</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-01-25 17:05 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear Kavouss<br>
<br>
Then, I think y ou have misunderstood the IRP process altogether. It is<br>
open to any materially affected party to challenge a Board action as counter<br>
to the Bylawas, and most notably the mission. That, indeed, is the single<br>
most essential part of the entire accountability process -- a standard of<br>
Board conduct and an independent review of that conduct. Without it we have<br>
no accountability at all<br>
<span class="im HOEnZb"><br>
Paul<br>
<br>
Paul Rosenzweig<br>
<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" value="+12025470660">+1 (202) 547-0660</a><br>
M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" value="+12023299650">+1 (202) 329-9650</a><br>
VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" value="+12027381739">+1 (202) 738-1739</a><br>
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>
Link to my PGP Key<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>]<br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 10:34 AM<br>
To: Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>><br>
Cc: Malcolm Hutty <<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net">malcolm@linx.net</a>>; Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>;<br>
ICANN <<a href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a>>; Thomas Rickert <<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a>>;<br>
<<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
<<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>>; <<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a>><br>
<<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a>>; Sidley ICANN CCWG <<a href="mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com">sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com</a>>;<br>
Greeley, Amy E. <<a href="mailto:AGreeley@sidley.com">AGreeley@sidley.com</a>>; Grapsas, Rebecca<br>
<<a href="mailto:rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com">rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9, 10, 11<br>
<br>
Dear Paul<br>
Then that allegation against ICANN , decision should go trough all steps of<br>
process.<br>
I do not believe that an individual should simply make an allegation to the<br>
Board, s decision without passing through an established procedure otherwise<br>
tens of allegations called for every day .that was not the objectives of<br>
IRP.Such inefficient course of action would totally counterproductive and<br>
detriment to the healthy process of ICANN works Regards Kavouss<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<br>
> On 25 Jan 2016, at 16:22, Paul Rosenzweig<br>
<<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Dear Kavous<br>
><br>
><br>
> If and only if the person materially being affected by the Board<br>
> decision makes a colorable allegation that the Board's actions are<br>
> inconsistent with the bylaws .... Whether or not they are actually<br>
> inconsistent is for the IRP to decide, in the end ...<br>
><br>
> Cheers<br>
> Paul<br>
><br>
> Paul Rosenzweig<br>
> <a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
> O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" value="+12025470660">+1 (202) 547-0660</a><br>
> M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" value="+12023299650">+1 (202) 329-9650</a><br>
> VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" value="+12027381739">+1 (202) 738-1739</a><br>
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>
> Link to my PGP Key<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>]<br>
> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 9:55 AM<br>
> To: Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>><br>
> Cc: Malcolm Hutty <<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net">malcolm@linx.net</a>>; Greg Shatan<br>
> <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>; ICANN <<a href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a>>; Thomas<br>
> Rickert <<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a>>;<br>
> <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
> <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>>; <<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a>><br>
> <<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a>>; Sidley ICANN CCWG<br>
> <<a href="mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com">sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com</a>>; Greeley, Amy E. <<a href="mailto:AGreeley@sidley.com">AGreeley@sidley.com</a>>;<br>
> Grapsas, Rebecca <<a href="mailto:rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com">rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com</a>><br>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9,<br>
> 10, 11<br>
><br>
> Dear Sir,<br>
> Yes , if and only if the Board,s decision is INCONSISTENT with or in<br>
> violation of Bylaws?!!!!<br>
> Regards<br>
> Kavouss<br>
><br>
> Sent from my iPhone<br>
><br>
>>> On 25 Jan 2016, at 15:48, Paul Rosenzweig<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Dear Kavouss<br>
>><br>
>> No IRP will review GAC advice. But the community did agree<br>
>> (overwhelmingly) that IRP review would apply to Board decisions in<br>
>> response to GAC advice, which is, of course, exactly what Malcolm<br>
>> posits<br>
> ...<br>
>><br>
>> Paul<br>
>><br>
>> Paul Rosenzweig<br>
>> <a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
>> O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" value="+12025470660">+1 (202) 547-0660</a><br>
>> M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" value="+12023299650">+1 (202) 329-9650</a><br>
>> VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" value="+12027381739">+1 (202) 738-1739</a><br>
>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>
>> Link to my PGP Key<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>]<br>
>> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 9:45 AM<br>
>> To: Malcolm Hutty <<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net">malcolm@linx.net</a>><br>
>> Cc: Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>; Paul Rosenzweig<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>; ICANN<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a>>; Thomas Rickert <<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a>>;<br>
>> <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>; <a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a>;<br>
>> Sidley ICANN CCWG <<a href="mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com">sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com</a>>; Greeley, Amy E.<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:AGreeley@sidley.com">AGreeley@sidley.com</a>>; Grapsas, Rebecca <<a href="mailto:rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com">rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com</a>><br>
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9,<br>
>> 10, 11<br>
>><br>
>> Dear All,<br>
>> Perhaps people totally forgotten that NO IRP SHALL BE INVOKED BY THE<br>
>> COMMUNITY.<br>
>> FOR GAC ADVICE.<br>
>> This has been discussed and confirmed .pls refer ti WP 2 and CCWG<br>
>> previous NOTES and REPORTS Regards Kavouss<br>
>><br>
>> Sent from my iPhone<br>
>><br>
>>> On 25 Jan 2016, at 10:57, Malcolm Hutty <<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net">malcolm@linx.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>> On 24/01/2016 21:32, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
>>>> Paul,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I was halfway through writing an email that said exactly that.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> This may be due to the lawyers re-interpreting "duly taken into<br>
account"<br>
>>>> in a way that I don't agree with and which I think is incorrect.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I also agree that this would be a substantial change.<br>
>>><br>
>>> To support that, I would ask you to consider the follow, not<br>
>>> unlikely, scenario.<br>
>>><br>
>>> The GAC has advised the Board to do something, but what it has<br>
>>> advised is not entirely clearly, and there is certainly ambiguity as<br>
>>> to how it might be implemented. The Board has then done something. A<br>
>>> materially affected party, unhappy with the Board's action and<br>
>>> preferring an alternative that would take a more extreme view of the<br>
>>> GAC advice, challenges the action in the IRP. The Board takes the<br>
>>> view that it has taken the GAC's advice into account and that what<br>
>>> it has done is reasonably consistent with the GAC advice; the<br>
>>> complainant argues that the action was not consistent with it.<br>
>>><br>
>>> If the IRP finds that factually the complainant is correct to allege<br>
>>> that the Board's action was not consisistent with the GAC advice,<br>
>>> what is the consequence of that? It seems to vary according to which<br>
>>> standard we choose:<br>
>>><br>
>>> - If the current standard applies, that the Board "duly take into<br>
>>> account" GAC advice, the IRP may still find that the Board did do that:<br>
>>> since they noted the GAC's advice, considered it, and believed<br>
>>> (albeit<br>
>>> incorrectly) that what they were doing constituted a reasonably<br>
>>> implementation of it, it is hard to say they did not meet this standard.<br>
>>> The IRP will however order the Board that to bring itself back into<br>
>>> compliance with the bylaws it must notify the GAC that it has acted<br>
>>> inconsistently, and try to find a mutually acceptable solution. The<br>
>>> action, however, may stand: a solution need not necessarily involve<br>
>>> cancelling the action, but might be found through supplementing the<br>
>>> action with another.<br>
>>><br>
>>> - If Holly's standard applies, that the Board "must not act<br>
>>> inconsistently" with GAC advice, then the mere finding that the<br>
>>> Board has acted inconsistently invalidates that decision. The action<br>
>>> must be quashed, if it is possible to do so; failure to do so would<br>
>>> consistute perpetuating the bylaws breach.<br>
>>><br>
>>> This is a material change, that may significantly affect the outcome.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Personally, I do not believe this change is needed or desirable. For<br>
>>> that reason, I respectfully disagree with accepting Holly's advice<br>
>>> on this particular case.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Kind Regards,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Malcolm.<br>
>>><br>
>>> --<br>
>>> Malcolm Hutty | tel: <a href="tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523" value="+442076453523">+44 20 7645 3523</a> Head of Public<br>
>>> Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange<br>
>>> | <a href="http://publicaffairs.linx.net/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://publicaffairs.linx.net/</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> London Internet Exchange Ltd<br>
>>> Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ<br>
>>><br>
>>> Company Registered in England No. 3137929<br>
>>> Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>