<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>Paul, I am a participant on the list.<div>I am also a part of the GNSO, as a member of the BC.</div><div><br></div><div>I am not sure that there is a single GNSO view.</div><div><br></div><div>Each Constituency will have to discuss and determine.</div><div><br></div><div>I am studying all options. And I am not laying down any marker.</div><div>After all, if I had, or anyone else had, back in 1998, ICANN would not even exist.</div><div><br></div><div>We have done pretty well by not laying down markers but just stumbling in the right </div><div>direction.</div><div><br></div><div>Let's keep up that effort. </div><div><br></div><div>I know all of you who have done so much work are tired and worn out.</div><div>BUT, there is so much progress. It is amazing. </div><div>Let's not lose our willingness to keep up the right direction at this point.</div><div><br></div><div>M</div><div><br><div>> From: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<br>> To: steve.crocker@icann.org; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx; thomas@rickert.net<br>> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 12:41:05 -0500<br>> CC: icann-board@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<br>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out<br>> <br>> Just to lay down a marker, so that silence is not taken as assent, this<br>> proposal from the Board is completely unacceptable to me and I suspect to<br>> most if not all of the gNSO.<br>> <br>> Right now I am so angry at the Board's last minute interference that if I<br>> say anything further it will be far too intemperate. <br>> Paul<br>> <br>> Paul Rosenzweig<br>> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <br>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<br>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<br>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<br>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>> Link to my PGP Key<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org] <br>> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 11:28 AM<br>> To: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía<br>> <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net><br>> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@icann.org>; Icann-board ICANN<br>> <icann-board@icann.org>; Accountability Community<br>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org><br>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out<br>> <br>> CCWG Colleagues,<br>> <br>> The Board has a serious and continued concern about the issues being raised<br>> that may result in the reduction of the GAC’s ability to participate in<br>> community decision making. This is most noticeable in the question of<br>> thresholds for board removal, however this is not an issue about removal or<br>> even thresholds, it is one part of the community being (or perceiving that<br>> it is being) sidelined. The Board’s concerns with this issue are not about<br>> Board removal, but about maintaining the balanced multistakeholder model. <br>> <br>> The Board is against any changes to the long established equilibrium and<br>> fairness among the different stakeholders within ICANN. The Board has long<br>> supported a threshold of four participants for Board removal in the ultimate<br>> escalation method proposed by the CCWG. Selecting one portion of the ICANN<br>> community and removing them from the equation - just through the ability to<br>> say that the community is unhappy with the acceptance of GAC advice that is<br>> within ICANN’s bylaws - raises significant concerns about how the<br>> multistakeholder model, and the ultimate stability of ICANN as an<br>> organization, can be maintained. This carved out exception undercuts the<br>> established role of governments within the multi stakeholder process, and<br>> could introduce new issues with the acceptance of ICANN’s model undermining<br>> the work of the CCWG. <br>> <br>> We understand that there are concerns with this path from within other parts<br>> of ICANN community, including members of the GAC and ALAC. The best course,<br>> in our opinion, would be a careful and objective discussion of the whole<br>> matter of how advice from ALL parties is appropriately considered within<br>> ICANN. If there is a graceful way to remove this matter from the immediate<br>> pressure of the deadline of submitting this proposal and make it a priority<br>> matter for either the implementation phase or Work Stream 2, we think there<br>> will be a solution which is genuinely good for everyone.<br>> <br>> We encourage you to share the CCWG’s proposal with the Chartering<br>> Organizations while the dialog on this outstanding point continues.<br>> <br>> Thank you,<br>> <br>> Steve Crocker<br>> Chair, ICANN Board of Directors<br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br></div></div> </div></body>
</html>