<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>
<div>
<div>Agreed and I would assume GNSO (Without speaking on behalf of the members) would be in the same situation.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-jg</div>
<div>
<div id="MAC_OUTLOOK_SIGNATURE"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:12pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Friday 19 February 2016 at 7:09 p.m.<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Kavouss Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>, James Gannon <<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net">james@cyberinvasion.net</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>Thomas Rickert <<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a>>, "<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>I support diplomacy. But in this case, I am being asked to have the ALAC support some modification in the proposal. I can accept that and we might even agree. But I need to understand what modification it is.
<br>
<br>
Ultimately we will need to ratify (or not) specific wording.<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
At 19/02/2016 01:39 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Dear Alan,<br>
Steve is not only a highly expert in technical matter and management but is also a diplomat.<br>
Please kindly read ihis comments without any attempt to decomposite it.<br>
I do not believe Steve make such decomposite action<br>
Regards<br>
Kavouss <br>
<br>
2016-02-19 19:32 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net">james@cyberinvasion.net</a> >:<br>
<dl><dd>In that case we miss all our timelines and might as well just throw everything that we have worked for out the window. This is a tactic, and one which we must reject and move forward as planned.<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>-jg<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>From: Kavouss Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com"> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>><br>
</dd><dd>Date: Friday 19 February 2016 at 6:30 p.m.<br>
</dd><dd>To: James Gannon <<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net">james@cyberinvasion.net</a> ><br>
</dd><dd>Cc: Phil Corwin <<a href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com">psc@vlaw-dc.com</a>>, Thomas Rickert <<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a>>, "<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"> accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>"
<<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"> accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Dear All,<br>
</dd><dd>Have we ever received a consensus objection or some form of wholesome proposal reflecting the full breath of membership of the other constituencies I think we need to reflect and forward correctly .<br>
</dd><dd>Who knows till end of ICANN 55 howmany objections will be tableed?<br>
</dd><dd>Regards<br>
</dd><dd>Kavouss <br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd>2016-02-19 19:23 GMT+01:00 Schaefer, Brett <<a href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org"> Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a>>:<br>
<dl><br>
<dd>I feel like I’m in the movie Ground Hog Day and every day is a 1 am ICANN call.
<br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd>From: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl"> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh<br>
</dd><dd>Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 1:17 PM<br>
</dd><dd>To: Phil Corwin<br>
</dd><dd>Cc: Thomas Rickert; <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue<br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Dear All,<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>There is big difference between providing the rights for GAC as decisional making entity and to exercise those rights<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>GAC has not decided on whether they wish to exercise that right or not,<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Supermajority and reconsideration of rejected Recommendation of other constituencies and rejection of GAC Advice should have the same threshold
<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>If ONE GETS THE BENEF OF 2/3 MAJORITY the other should ALSO have the same. BENEFIT
<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>If GAC advice could be rejected by the Board with simple Majority the Recommendation of other entities SHOULD also be rejected by simple majority.<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>If the Board gets into negotiation with GAC after it has rejected its advice, they also get into negotiation with other constituencies if their Recommendations were rejected .<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Currently there is a full imbalance between the PDP Recommendations treatments and GAC advice<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>The PDP Recommendations developed by supermajority in some constituencies or by so-called SOFT CONSENSUS could only be rejected by the Board with 2/3 MAJORITY BUT GAC advice ,normally decided by consensus could only be rejected by SIMPLE MAJORITY
<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>This is unfair.<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>However, after rejection with such an imbalance criteria both cases could be negotiated by Board and the two constituencies.<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>I do not agree with the argument submitted with the risk that those people submitting such argument may disserve the ethic of correspondence and going out of the limit and not observing mutual respect
<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Kavouss <br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd>2016-02-19 18:51 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <<a href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com">psc@vlaw-dc.com</a>>:<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Greg:<br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd>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”.
<br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd>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.<br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Best. Philip<br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Virtualaw LLC<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>1155 F Street, NW<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Suite 1050<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Washington, DC 20004<br>
<br>
</dd><dd><a href="tel:202-559-8597">202-559-8597</a>/Direct<br>
<br>
</dd><dd><a href="tel:202-559-8750">202-559-8750</a>/Fax<br>
<br>
</dd><dd><a href="tel:202-255-6172">202-255-6172</a>/cell<br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Twitter: @VlawDC<br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd>"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd>From: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl"> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Greg Shatan<br>
</dd><dd>Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM<br>
</dd><dd>To: Kavouss Arasteh<br>
</dd><dd>Cc: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>; Thomas Rickert<br>
</dd><dd>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue<br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd>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.<br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd>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.<br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd>When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well.<br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out?<br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd>I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all.<br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Greg<br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd>On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com"> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Regards<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Kavouss <br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd><dd>2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com"> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Dear Co-chairs<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon.<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>This is an ALARMING SITUATION ,<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>If there is no consensus means there is no consensus ,<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one.<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>If a mistake has occurred we should repair it .<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator .<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL <br>
<br>
</dd><dd>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<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>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.<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Regards<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Kavouss <br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
<br>
<hr>
</dd><dd><font color="#888888">BrettSchaefer<br>
</font></dd><dd><font color="#888888">Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs<br>
</font></dd><dd><font color="#888888">Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy<br>
</font></dd><dd><font size="2" color="#58595B">The Heritage Foundation<br>
</font></dd><dd><font size="2" color="#58595B">214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br>
</font></dd><dd><font size="2" color="#58595B">Washington, DC 20002</font><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></dd><dd><font color="#888888"><a href="tel:202-608-6097">202-608-6097</a><br>
</font></dd><dd><font size="2" color="#004B8D"><a href="http://heritage.org/">heritage.org</a><br>
<br>
</font></dd><dd>_______________________________________________<br>
</dd><dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
</dd><dd><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<div align="center"><br>
</div>
</dd><dd>No virus found in this message.<br>
</dd><dd>Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a><br>
</dd><dd>Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16<br>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<br>
</dd></dl>
<br>
</dd></dl>
<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" eudora="autourl">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</body>
</html>