<p dir="ltr">+1 and this is one of the reasons why restricting GAC from participating in exercising community powers in the manner proposed needs to be given a second thought as there seem to be unforeseen implication for this.</p>
<p dir="ltr">It will make no sense for GAC not to participate if board's action on GAC advice finally ends up being the reason to utilise a board removal power.</p>
<p dir="ltr">While all these are close to impossible, the fact is that when there is a process then there is a way for possibilities. I hope the process we are setting will not cause community clashes thereby breaking one of the "known to be working" MS structure globally.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 9 Feb 2016 11:03 a.m., "Tijani BEN JEMAA" <<a href="mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn">tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><font color="#002e7a">Sorry for missing the dedicated calls.</font><div><font color="#002e7a"><br></font></div><div><font color="#002e7a">Recommendation 2, Para 51:</font><div><font color="#002e7a">The proposed modification concerns me because it will affect the power of removing the board. Once again, do you find it acceptable that in the absence of more than one objection, only 3 SO/AC may remove the board????</font></div><div><font color="#002e7a"><br></font></div><div><font color="#002e7a">For me, this is not acceptable under any circonstance. If the CAG is prevented from participating in the decision making, we need to have at least 2 objections to avoid the removal of the board, means 2 supports and 2 objections; this is 50% of the SO/AC objecting….. If you remember, when the removal of the board was considered, all of the CCWG members said that this is a very serious decision that all don’t want to happen, and we was about to require the unanimity of the SO/AC for this power to be exercised; Now, the objection of 50% of the SO/AC participating in the decision making is proposed to avoid the removal of the board….. This will affect the stability of the whole ICANN and may alter the stability of the Internet.</font></div><div><font color="#002e7a"><br></font></div><div><font color="#002e7a">I hope this modification will not be approved by the CCWG today. </font></div><div><font color="#002e7a"><br></font><div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word"><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word"><div style="text-align:start;text-indent:0px;word-wrap:break-word"><div style="text-align:start;text-indent:0px;word-wrap:break-word"><div style="text-align:start;text-indent:0px;word-wrap:break-word"><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="color:rgb(54,95,145)">-----------------------------------------------------------------------------</span></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><b><span style="color:rgb(54,95,145)">Tijani BEN JEMAA</span></b></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="color:rgb(54,95,145)">Executive Director</span></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="color:rgb(54,95,145)">Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (</span><b style="color:rgb(54,95,145)">FMAI</b><span style="color:rgb(54,95,145)">)</span></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="color:rgb(54,95,145)">Phone: <a href="tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114" value="+21698330114" target="_blank">+216 98 330 114</a></span></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="color:rgb(54,95,145)"> </span> <span style="color:rgb(54,95,145)"><a href="tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114" value="+21652385114" target="_blank">+216 52 385 114</a></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(54,95,145)">-----------------------------------------------------------------------------</span></div><br><br><br><br><br><br></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>
<br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Le 9 févr. 2016 à 02:03, Bernard Turcotte <<a href="mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com" target="_blank">turcotte.bernard@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :</div><br><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"><div><font size="4"><div style="display:inline">All</div>,<br></font></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><div class="gmail_default"><b><u><font size="4">(Note this email is based on the one sent Friday but includes the clarifications developed on the Monday 8 February call)</font></u></b></div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">As agreed on the call <div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline">Friday 5 February</div> please find the new reference text for Recommendation 11 which will be considered by the CCWG at its next full meeting on February 9th (12:00 UTC) to confirm, or not, if it is a consensus position of the CCWG-Accountability.</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">To assist you in considering the proposal you will find below a summary of the changes that are being recommended<div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"> as well as the clarifications agreed to on the special call of Monday 8 February. </div> In addition to this, and given these changes require modifications to Recommendations 1 and 2, which have been finalized, please find attached the finalized versions of Recommendations 1 and 2 with the proposed changes noted in red line. Given Recommendation 11 is not yet finalized the current draft which includes the most recent amendments (no new obligations, rationale and conformity with ICANN Bylaws)<div style="display:inline"> </div>is provided with the changes from 2/3rds to 60% being red lined in this version. A proposed draft text in para 22 has been added<div style="display:inline"> in red line</div> to explain the changes in Recommendation 11<div style="display:inline">.</div></font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4"><u>Summary of changes:</u></font></div><div style="font-size:small"><br></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:small;margin-bottom:14pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Avenir Next Regular'">1. Modify <span style="color:rgb(39,73,255)">Rec #1/Annex 1</span> and <span style="color:rgb(39,73,255)">Rec #2/Annex 2</span> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"></span></p><p style="font-size:small;margin:0cm 0cm 14pt 27pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:Symbol">·<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Avenir Next Regular'">Add the following to the end of
Paragraph 23 in <span style="color:rgb(39,73,255)">Rec #1/Annex 1</span>: </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:small;margin:0cm 0cm 14pt 27pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Avenir Next Regular'">The GAC may not, however,
participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of
the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the
Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to
participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views
will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to
initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific
Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique
obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to
implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11)
while protecting the community’s power to challenge such Board decisions.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"></span></p><p style="font-size:small;margin:0cm 0cm 14pt 27pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:Symbol">·<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Avenir Next Regular'">Modify the Table in <span style="color:rgb(39,73,255)">Rec. #2/Annex 2</span> to reflect this carve out and
add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the
support of four SOs or ACs:</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:small;margin:0cm 0cm 14pt 27pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Avenir Next Regular'">(para 51) The CCWG-Accountability
also recommends that in a situation where <span style="color:rgb(39,73,255)">the
GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is
proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice </span>and
the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly
exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:small;margin-bottom:14pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Avenir Next Regular'">2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60%
threshold for rejection of GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that
supermajority requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify
the standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. (60% replaced
2/3rds where appropriate – added draft para 22 for consistency)</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:small;margin-bottom:14pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Avenir Next Regular'">3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings
(4 February and 8 February)</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"></span></p><p style="font-size:small;margin:0cm 0cm 14pt 27pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:Symbol">·<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Avenir Next Regular'"> Discuss
and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above as first final reading;</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"></span></p><p style="font-size:small;margin:0cm 0cm 14pt 27pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:Symbol">·<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Avenir Next Regular'"> Discuss
and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as first final reading;
and</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"></span></p><p style="font-size:small;margin:0cm 0cm 14pt 27pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:Symbol">·<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Avenir Next Regular'">Discuss
and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as first final
reading.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:small;margin:0cm 0cm 14pt 13.5pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Avenir Next Regular'">4. Submit the package deal to the
CCWG for <u>final consideration</u> (2</span><sup><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:'Avenir Next Regular'">nd</span></sup><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:'Avenir Next Regular'"> final reading) at its
conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate balance requiring
compromise on all sides to reach consensus and recommending adoption “as is”
(assuming consensus on Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4"><b><u>CCWG-Accountability - Clarifications for Recommendation 11
Compromise proposal (Kavous-Becky)</u></b></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:large;font-family:Symbol"><br></span></p></div></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:large;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span style="font-size:large">The carve out may only apply to community
challenges to ICANN board decisions that were based on GAC advice to the Board,
where that GAC advice was "approved by general agreement in the absence of
any formal objection.”.</span><span style="font-size:large"> </span><span style="font-size:large">The carve out
would not apply to challenges based on GAC advice that was not “approved by
general agreement in the absence of any formal objection.</span></p></div></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div><p><font size="4"> </font><span style="font-size:large;font-family:Symbol">·</span><span style="font-size:large">Identifying GAC advice applicable to use of the
carve out:</span></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><p style="margin-left:72pt"><font size="4"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:'Courier New'">o<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span>GAC confirmation - <span lang="EN-US">Would apply to GAC advice to the Board that was
designated as consensus advice that was "approved by general
agreement in the absence of any formal objection.”</span></font></p><p style="margin-left:72pt"><font size="4"><span style="font-family:'Courier New'">o<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span>Board confirmation - Could only apply to board
decisions where the Board states in its required rationale that its decision
was mainly or solely based on GAC advice that was "approved by general
agreement in the absence of any formal objection.”.</font></p><p style="margin-left:72pt"><font size="4"><span style="font-family:'Courier New'">o<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></span></font><span style="font-size:large">Should the petitioning SO or AC consider that
the carve-out is applicable, it needs to state so while petitioning the other
decisional participants, and needs to clearly identify which consensus GAC
advice and which Board decisions support proposing using the carve out. The community power requested in the petition
would need to be approved according to the decision thresholds indicated for
the Empowered Community.</span></p><div><br></div><ul><li><font size="4">Timing for invoking the carve out – The use of this carve out would need to be included in the petition to the Empowered Community, and would therefore be subject to the timing restrictions applicable to the escalation process (e.g. requiring a decisional participant to approve a petition within 21 days of a Board decision being published). While this addresses timing of the board challenge, note that the board decision that is being challenged could be based on standing advice that the GAC had provided at an earlier date.</font><br></li></ul><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 14pt 13.5pt"><span style="font-family:'Avenir Next Regular'"><font size="4"></font></span><br></div><div style="font-size:small;margin:0cm 0cm 14pt 48pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"></span><br></div><div style="font-size:small"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span><span lang="EN-US"></span><br></div></div>
</div><br></div>
</div><br></div>
<span><CCWGV4-Annex 1-FinalV1.0-BT-TC-PorposedChangesForRec11.pdf></span><span><CCWGV4-Annex 2-FinalDraftV0.9-BT-TC-ProposedChangesForRec11.pdf></span><span><Rec 11 - Third reading conclusion v6-BT-TC-ThirdReadingConclusionsIncludedPlusCompromise.pdf></span>_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div><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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>