<html>
<body>
Thank you Sam.<br><br>
At 19/02/2016 02:05 PM, Samantha Eisner wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hi Alan, <br><br>
I write as staff liaison to the CCWG, based on my understanding of the
Board’s position. Thank you for the request for
clarification. The Board still supports the compromise that it
presented earlier to the CCWG, and so your point 1. (“They are sticking
to their previous statement which I understood to mean accepting the
"carve-out", but not the reduction in the threshhold to remove
the Board. That stays at 4 (and requires unanimity) unless there is a
successful IRP”). is the correct understanding of Steve’s note.<br><br>
Thanks,<br><br>
Sam<br><br>
From:
<<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of
Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
><br>
Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 10:30 AM<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>"
<<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue<br><br>
I need some clarity from the Board.<br><br>
I can read Steve's message in two ways.<br><br>
1. They are sticking to their previous statement which I understood to
mean accepting the "carve-out", but not the reduction in the
threshhold to remove the Board. That stays at 4 (and requires unanimity)
unless there is a successful IRP).<br><br>
2. They are now withdrawing their previous position and rejecting the
carve-out excluding the GAC from participating in Community Powers
exercised in response to Board action/inaction over GAC advice.<br><br>
Steve?<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 19/02/2016 12:37 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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>
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>
When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as
well.<br><br>
Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will
the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out?<br><br>
I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as
a warning to us all.<br><br>
Greg<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:
<dl>
<dd>Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message
<dd>Regards
<dd><font color="#888888">Kavouss </font>
<dd>2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh
<<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">
kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>:
<dl>
<dd>Dear Co-chairs
<dd>You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be
echoed by other gouvernements soon.
<dd>This is an ALARMING SITUATION ,
<dd>If there is no consensus means there is no consensus ,
<dd>We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one.
<dd>Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it
does not come up as such
<dd>If a mistake has occurred we should repair it .
<dd>Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole
member from Sole Member to Sole designator .
<dd>THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL
<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
<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.
<dd>You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and
would certainly be further grown up soon
<dd>Regards
<dd><font color="#888888">Kavouss </font><br>
<br><br>
</dl>
<dd>_______________________________________________
<dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<dd><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<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>
</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></blockquote></body>
</html>