<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div>Unfortunetely people expressed the view pmentioned in Back's Suggestion without having discussed that.</div><div>There k legalé, structural, procedural and operational ( admnistrative issues associated with that suggestion.</div><div>Just retaining 2/3 because GAC referred to it in Dublin on the expense of a vague, complex and non studied case produced problem .</div><div>Those who stick to 2/3 ON ANY EXPENSE MEANS THAT BUYING THE .....with money.</div><div>Iam sorry I can not agree with that non studied case in 10-12 days before the end of the study.</div><div>We do not know the intended and unintended and unanticipated consequence of Becy'S PROPOSAL .</div><div> WE NEED TO CAREFULLY STUDY THAT. GOING THROUGH 3 READINGS, asking lawyers to comments, That is too risky while may be good if we a were studied it in Februay 2015 and not February 2016.</div><div>I am not comfortable with that.</div><div>It may satisfy GAC from one angle but we do not know what problem will be produced in applying that</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-02-01 19:57 GMT+01:00 <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" target="_blank">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Steve<br>
<br>
I feel that alternative 6 would be very difficult to reconcile with the Dublin GAC consensus as several of us have already expressed.<br>
<br>
Becky's proposal is also on the table and seems to address concerns expressed by gnso colleagues, while not changing the 2/3 which is part of the GAC Dublin consensus.<br>
<br>
Therefore I feel it is worthwile exploring it further.<br>
<br>
regards<br>
<br>
Jorge<br>
<br>
Von meinem iPhone gesendet<br>
<br>
Am 01.02.2016 um 19:35 schrieb Steve DelBianco <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>>>:<br>
<br>
If we are going to consider alternatives to Rec 11 on our next call, please keep in mind that last week we discussed another alternative that was published in the Rec 11 1st reading document<<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Final+Report?preview=/56989168/58002207/Rec%2011%20-%20GAC%20advice%20First%20reading%20conclusion%20v4_SDB.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Final+Report?preview=/56989168/58002207/Rec%2011%20-%20GAC%20advice%20First%20reading%20conclusion%20v4_SDB.pdf</a>>.<br>
<span><br>
On page 1 we listed these 2 alternative ways to address Stress Test 18:<br>
<br>
5. Confirm or discuss recommendation for 2/3 threshold (11 votes) for Board to reject GAC advice that was approved by GAC general agreement in the absence of any formal objection. The present threshold is majority (9 votes). CCWGshould evaluatewhether requiring 2 more board votes to reject GAC advice is an appropriate threshold, given that GAC would be required to approve such advice by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection.<br>
<br>
or<br>
<br>
6. Discuss request that GAC advice must be approved by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, under the present threshold for a majority of board to reject GAC advice.<br>
<br>
We briefly discussed #6 above, as it was consistent with comments from many in CCWG, and reflected the original recommendation from the Stress Test work party in February-2105.<br>
<br>
<br>
</span>From: <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>>> on behalf of "Schaefer, Brett" <<a href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org">Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org">Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a>>><br>
<span>Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 11:52 AM<br>
</span>To: Becky Burr <<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>>>, Phil Buckingham <<a href="mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk">phil@dotadvice.co.uk</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk">phil@dotadvice.co.uk</a>>>, 'Kavouss Arasteh' <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>><br>
Cc: ACCT-Staff <<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a>>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a>>>, 'CCWG Accountability' <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>>><br>
<span>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution<br>
<br>
Becky,<br>
<br>
Could you clarify a couple of things for me? First, this would apply to all GAC advice, correct? Second, if GAC is not included, the thresholds for exercising powers 1, 2, 5 and 7 would have to be adjusted to prevent a unanimity requirement for exercising them, correct?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Brett<br>
<br>
From: Burr, Becky [mailto:<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>]<br>
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 10:49 AM<br>
To: Phil Buckingham; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; Schaefer, Brett<br>
</span>Cc: <a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a>>; 'Thomas Rickert'; 'CCWG Accountability'<br>
<span>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution<br>
<br>
Kavouss¹ proposal (Board may reject GAC Advice only with support of 60% of<br>
its members) is simple and it is a compromise - essentially midway between<br>
a majority and a 2/3rds standard.<br>
<br>
My proposal attempts to address some of the structural concerns that arise<br>
when you look at Recommendations 1, 10 and 11 together. Specifically, it<br>
is intended to address the ³2 bites at the apple² situation when (1) the<br>
GAC issues Advice, which is then accepted by the Board - even where a<br>
majority (but not 60% or 66%) of the Board opposes that and (2) the<br>
community would like to consider challenging the Board¹s implementation as<br>
exceeding the scope of ICANN¹s Mission. In that situation, the GAC has<br>
indicated that it will participate in the escalation decision regarding<br>
invocation a community power, for example through an IRP. I propose that<br>
we should maintain the current threshold (e.g., no more than 2 SO/ACs<br>
object), but that the GAC¹s vote should not be counted to block use of a<br>
community power to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. I<br>
would note that Jorge notes that this principle should be applied across<br>
the Board. I don¹t agree, as I think that GAC Advice is not comparable to<br>
the output of, for example, a PDP process.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
J. Beckwith Burr<br>
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy<br>
General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer<br>
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006<br>
</span>Office: <a href="tel:%2B1.202.533.2932" value="+12025332932">+1.202.533.2932</a> Mobile: <a href="tel:%2B1.202.352.6367" value="+12023526367">+1.202.352.6367</a> / <a href="http://neustar.biz" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">neustar.biz</a><<a href="http://neustar.biz" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://neustar.biz</a>><br>
<<a href="http://www.neustar.biz" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.neustar.biz</a>><br>
<span><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/1/16, 10:26 AM, "Phil Buckingham" <<a href="mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk">phil@dotadvice.co.uk</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk">phil@dotadvice.co.uk</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
>Dear Kavouss,<br>
><br>
>Thank you for your compromise proposal/ solution. The CCWG really does<br>
>need<br>
>to get over this huge hurdle.<br>
>I am struggling to keep to up.<br>
> In preparation for the call tomorrow , could you/ Co Chairs summarise<br>
>your<br>
>and Becky ' alternative recommendation. The key question to me is which<br>
>is<br>
>easier to implement and the simplest to understand.<br>
>Many thanks,<br>
>Phil<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>-----Original Message-----<br>
>From: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>><br>
>[mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of<br>
>Kavouss Arasteh<br>
>Sent: 01 February 2016 13:35<br>
>To: Schaefer, Brett<br>
</span><span>>Cc: <a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a>>; Thomas Rickert; CCWG Accountability<br>
>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution<br>
><br>
>Dear Brett<br>
>I think it id more straight forward to take 60% than Becky ,s proposal not<br>
>because mine is better but more simpler.<br>
>Regards<br>
>I appeal to you and your distinguished colleagues as well as Becky to<br>
>kindly consider 60% with favourable thought Kavouss<br>
><br>
>Sent from my iPhone<br>
><br>
</span>>> On 1 Feb 2016, at 13:21, Schaefer, Brett <<a href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org">Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org">Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a>>><br>
<span>>wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't the arguments against the 2/3 requirement,<br>
>which is after all 66%, apply just as much to the 60% proposal?<br>
>><br>
>> I think Becky's proposal gets much closer to addressing the substance of<br>
>the concerns raised.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> ________________________________<br>
>> Brett Schaefer<br>
>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs<br>
>> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National<br>
>> Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation<br>
>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br>
>> Washington, DC 20002<br>
>> <a href="tel:202-608-6097" value="+12026086097">202-608-6097</a><br>
>><br>
</span>>><a href="http://heritage.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">heritage.org</a><<a href="http://heritage.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://heritage.org</a>><<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage</a><br>
<span>>>.org_&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa<br>
>>hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=TnI7iy91U78v<br>
>>r2iGqvQgUvyuD2Gjh7I0sPPGfgh1zlk&e= ><br>
>><br>
>> On Jan 31, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Greg Shatan<br>
</span><div><div class="h5">><<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>%<a href="mailto:3cmailto%3Agregshatanipc@gmail.com">3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> All,<br>
>><br>
>> I wanted to pluck this suggestion out of the email swamp.<br>
>><br>
>> Kavouss made an alternative proposal concerning another threshold<br>
>>between<br>
>Simple Majority and 2/3 -- the alternative threshold is 60%.<br>
>><br>
>> Speaking only for myself, this could be a simple but creative way out of<br>
>the current situation. It is a literally a middle ground between the<br>
>current majority threshold and the previously proposed 2/3 threshold:<br>
>><br>
>> Votes<br>
>><br>
>> Percentage<br>
>><br>
>> Result<br>
>><br>
>> 8/16<br>
>><br>
>> 50%<br>
>><br>
>> No<br>
>><br>
>> 9/16<br>
>><br>
>> 56.25%<br>
>><br>
>> Yes, by majority<br>
>><br>
>> 10/16<br>
>><br>
>> 62.50%<br>
>><br>
>> Yes, if by 60%<br>
>><br>
>> 11/16<br>
>><br>
>> 68.75%<br>
>><br>
>> Yes, if by 2/3<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> This would require one more vote than the current threshold and one less<br>
>vote than the 2/3 threshold. Win/win?<br>
>><br>
>> Greg<br>
>><br>
>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh<br>
</div></div><span>><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>%<a href="mailto:3cmailto%3Akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>>> wrote:<br>
>> Dear Co-Chairs<br>
>> Pls kindly confirm that you have received my last alternative proposal<br>
>> concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3. This<br>
>> alternative threshould is 60% There has been many cases considered<br>
>> with that level of threshold Pls confirm its recption and confirm<br>
>> actions to be taken before you go to poll Awaiting for your reply<br>
>> Kavouss<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> [...]<br>
<br>
</span><span>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><br>
</span><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>
</blockquote></div><br></div>