<html>
<body>
The Supplemental Proposal says that the threshold CAN be reduced to three
under two conditions:<br><br>
(1) after an IRP has found that, in implementing GAC advice, the Board
acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, or <br><br>
(2) if the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in
question. <br><br>
My recollection is that the Board proposed only (1). Becky (and/or
perhaps others) proposed (2), but I do not recall it being accepted by
the Board or by the CCWG as a whole.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 19/02/2016 04:38 PM, Jordan Carter wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Ok. If Steve Crocker could also
confirm that his understanding is the same, that would be very
helpful.<br><br>
<br>
On the overall point - the board has already made its view on that
question clear. Steve's email doesn't reference the GPI test that is the
only basis the Board has set out to object to ccwg proposals, and which
it has invoked prior.<br><br>
The intervention thus has two effects. It is a source of uncertainty,
because it isn't clear. And it is a source of delay, because the intent
and the group's response to it has to be clarified.<br><br>
Once again, we face a further delay thanks to the way the ICANN board has
chosen to behave. I guess I wish I could say I was surprised, or
disappointed - but that's long gone. I'm just confused: what is the end
game here? <br><br>
If anyone knows, please feel free to share.<br><br>
Jordan <br><br>
On Saturday, 20 February 2016, Samantha Eisner
<<a href="mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org">
Samantha.Eisner@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Hi Becky - <br><br>
<dd>There was another thread on this from Alan, but wanted to confirm in
this thread too that this is the correct understanding of the Board’s
concern.<br><br>
<dd>Thanks,<br>
<dd>Sam<br><br>
<dd>From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on
behalf of "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><br>
<dd>Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 10:55 AM<br>
<dd>To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>,
'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, 'Greg Shatan'
<gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, 'Kavouss Arasteh'
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><br>
<dd>Cc: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net>,
"accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org><br>
<dd>Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] what the Board is objecting to here -<br><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>J. Beckwith Burr<br>
<dd>Neustar, Inc.</b>/Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy
Officer<br>
<dd>1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006<br>
<dd>Office:</b>+1.202.533.2932 Mobile:</b>+1.202.352.6367
/<a href="http://www.neustar.biz">neustar.biz</a><br>
</b><br>
<dd>From: Paul Rosenzweig
<paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com><br>
<dd>Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 1:15 PM<br>
<dd>To: 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, Greg Shatan
<gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><br>
<dd>Cc: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net>, Accountability
Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org><br>
<dd>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue<br><br>
<dd>+1<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Paul Rosenzweig<br><br>
<dd>paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<br><br>
<dd>O: +1 (202) 547-0660<br><br>
<dd>M: +1 (202) 329-9650<br><br>
<dd>VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<br><br>
<dd>Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_index.php-3Foption-3Dcom-5Fcontent-26view-3Darticle-26id-3D19-26Itemid-3D9&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=guusLuvtqD1j7nKqaUhBU6PnWk15AIgAcdJMrsbOcGU&s=5fE0pJdgqOaPJb-B-U2wph0XIexH6d3Ur-C_OPbXxsM&e=">
Link to my PGP Key</a><br><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference.com_events_us16-3Futm-5Fsource-3Dsignature-26utm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fcampaign-3Dspeakers-2Dus2016&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=guusLuvtqD1j7nKqaUhBU6PnWk15AIgAcdJMrsbOcGU&s=ySzo4Jr6AxFJKi11cpljNAnB67Qew_54izXAsiuVIn0&e=">
<img src="cid:7.1.0.9.2.20160219171330.1157e008@mcgill.ca.1" width=578 height=87 alt="[]">
</a><br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>From:</b> Phil Corwin
[<a href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com</a>] <br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Friday, February 19, 2016 12:52 PM<br>
<dd>To:</b> Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><br>
<dd>Cc:</b> Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Greg:<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<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> <br><br>
<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> <br><br>
<dd>Best. Philip<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal<br>
</b><br>
<dd>Virtualaw LLC<br>
</b><br>
<dd>1155 F Street, NW<br>
</b><br>
<dd>Suite 1050<br>
</b><br>
<dd>Washington, DC 20004<br>
</b><br>
<dd>202-559-8597/Direct<br>
</b><br>
<dd>202-559-8750/Fax<br>
</b><br>
<dd>202-255-6172/cell<br>
</b><br>
<dd> <br>
</b><br>
<dd>Twitter: @VlawDC<br>
</b><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<br>
</i></b><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>From:</b>accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
[<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of
</b>Greg Shatan<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM<br>
<dd>To:</b> Kavouss Arasteh<br>
<dd>Cc:</b> accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Thomas Rickert<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<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> <br><br>
<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> <br><br>
<dd>When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to
move as well.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings?
Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out?<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve
as a warning to us all.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Greg<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:<br><br>
<dd>Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning
message<br><br>
<dd>Regards<br><br>
<dd>Kavouss <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:<br><br>
<dd>Dear Co-chairs<br><br>
<dd>You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be
echoed by other gouvernements soon.<br><br>
<dd>This is an ALARMING SITUATION ,<br><br>
<dd>If there is no consensus means there is no consensus ,<br><br>
<dd>We could not favour one community in disfavouring another
one.<br><br>
<dd>Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it
does not come up as such<br><br>
<dd>If a mistake has occurred we should repair it .<br><br>
<dd>Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole
member from Sole Member to Sole designator .<br><br>
<dd>THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL <br><br>
<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>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>You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and
would certainly be further grown up soon<br><br>
<dd>Regards<br><br>
<dd>Kavouss <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<dd>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>
<dd>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=guusLuvtqD1j7nKqaUhBU6PnWk15AIgAcdJMrsbOcGU&s=Hzg0trn6-DcJzuYFDYd60Q_xbVgd4ZG9Vk6RIh2drL8&e=">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br><br>
<dd> <br>
<div align="center"><br>
</div>
<dd>No virus found in this message.<br>
<dd>Checked by AVG -
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=guusLuvtqD1j7nKqaUhBU6PnWk15AIgAcdJMrsbOcGU&s=Dh4Xz9w8ZRwR6eFO0VPUy2g_0f7mTVksA5quPl1roO8&e=">
www.avg.com</a><br>
<dd>Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date:
02/14/16<br><br>
</dl><br><br>
-- <br>
Jordan Carter<br>
Chief Executive, InternetNZ<br><br>
+64-21-442-649 |
<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a><br>
<br>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity<br>
Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png"<br>
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"<br>
Content-ID: <image001.png@01D16B17.90D93970><br>
X-Attachment-Id: 8ad2965fd910ef78_0.1<br><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<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></body>
</html>