<p dir="ltr">On 19 Feb 2016 9:04 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> What is painful, Seun, is to see the entire process which many of us have labored over for nearly 18 months thrown out the window because an isolated Board plays the trump card at the 11th hour. That is not bottom-up development of policy ….<br>
><br>
SO: I think the statement above is not accurate. The topic that is being discussed right now is not opening up the 18months work, but discussing an item that came up just this month. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Secondly I keep wondering why we always seem to refer to board stalling the process when indeed a number of the community already voiced their concern. I think it's a tactic that diverts attention and begs one's Sympathy unnecessarily. I will strongly suggest we focus on the issue instead.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards<br>
> <br>
><br>
> Paul<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Paul Rosenzweig<br>
><br>
> <a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
><br>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<br>
><br>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<br>
><br>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<br>
><br>
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>
><br>
> Link to my PGP Key<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>] <br>
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 2:31 PM<br>
> To: Becky Burr <<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>><br>
> Cc: Kavouss Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>; Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>; Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.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>; Phil Corwin <<a href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com">psc@vlaw-dc.com</a>><br>
><br>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] what the Board is objecting to here -<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Hi Becky,<br>
><br>
> FWIW, what you indicate below has been the understanding since the concern was raised by Bruce. Steve has also just reiterate the view as well.<br>
> However, let it be on record that others(including myself) have always raised similar concern, which even predates Bruce's comment.<br>
><br>
> I have no idea what the goal of some in this process is anymore. If indeed the goal is to have an all inclusive and balanced MS that keeps the board accountable, then I don't think it should be difficult for anyone to be convinced that having 3 out of 7 SO/AC(yes because ICANN has more than 7 *distinct* community by structure) spill the entire board of an organisation like ICANN is not the right thing to do.<br>
><br>
> It's so painful that a few participants in the CCWG have become quite vocal in this process in a manner that tends towards intimidating others. It is my hope that the co-chairs will be careful to identify distinct views among the pool of traffic.<br>
><br>
> Regards<br>
><br>
> On 19 Feb 2016 7:56 p.m., "Burr, Becky" <<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Just for the sake of absolute precision, I think the Board’s point is that the carve out – and hence the 3 SO/AC threshold – could apply where an IRP determines that the Board’s actions in response to GAC Advice contravene the Bylaws. I think what worries the Board is that the notion that the Board could be recalled by 3 SO/AC combination for action that DOES NOT contravene the Bylaws.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> J. Beckwith Burr <br>
>> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer<br>
>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006<br>
>> Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / <a href="http://neustar.biz">neustar.biz</a><br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> From: Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>><br>
>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 1:15 PM<br>
>> To: 'Phil Corwin' <<a href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com">psc@vlaw-dc.com</a>>, Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>, Kavouss Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> Cc: 'Thomas Rickert' <<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a>>, Accountability Community <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> +1<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Paul Rosenzweig<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
>><br>
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<br>
>><br>
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<br>
>><br>
>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<br>
>><br>
>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>
>><br>
>> Link to my PGP Key<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> From: Phil Corwin [mailto:<a href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com">psc@vlaw-dc.com</a>] <br>
>> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:52 PM<br>
>> To: Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>; Kavouss Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> Cc: 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><br>
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Greg:<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> 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>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> 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>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Best. Philip<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal<br>
>><br>
>> Virtualaw LLC<br>
>><br>
>> 1155 F Street, NW<br>
>><br>
>> Suite 1050<br>
>><br>
>> Washington, DC 20004<br>
>><br>
>> 202-559-8597/Direct<br>
>><br>
>> 202-559-8750/Fax<br>
>><br>
>> 202-255-6172/cell<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Twitter: @VlawDC<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> <a href="mailto:From%3Aaccountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">From: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 Greg Shatan<br>
>> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM<br>
>> To: Kavouss Arasteh<br>
>> Cc: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>; Thomas Rickert<br>
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> 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>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> 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>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out?<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Greg<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> 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>
>> Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message<br>
>><br>
>> Regards<br>
>><br>
>> Kavouss<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> 2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
>><br>
>> Dear Co-chairs<br>
>><br>
>> You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon.<br>
>><br>
>> This is an ALARMING SITUATION ,<br>
>><br>
>> If there is no consensus means there is no consensus ,<br>
>><br>
>> We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one.<br>
>><br>
>> Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such<br>
>><br>
>> If a mistake has occurred we should repair it .<br>
>><br>
>> Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator .<br>
>><br>
>> THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL<br>
>><br>
>> 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>
>> 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>
>> You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon<br>
>><br>
>> Regards<br>
>><br>
>> Kavouss<br>
>><br>
>> <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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> ________________________________<br>
>><br>
>> No virus found in this message.<br>
>> Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a><br>
>> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16<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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></p>