<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div>Frustration manifested more and more. But there could be a way out .We can not just be indifference. We should learn from those that never disappointed but try till the last mintues</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-02-20 23:12 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear All,<br>
I am sure the Board would include its concerns if CCWG ignore to consider that concern<br>
It id not Minority statement .<br>
Board should not be labelled as Minority.<br>
Regards<br>
<span class="im HOEnZb">Kavousd<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> On 20 Feb 2016, at 21:58, Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> No matter what I think about the acceptability of one more compromise, I<br>
> agree that it is time to move one and finish. More studies are not<br>
> going to make this issue any clearer.<br>
><br>
> If we are unable to accept the Board's suggestion, then we should just<br>
> leave it to them to add yet one more 'minority' opinion to the report.<br>
><br>
> avri<br>
><br>
>> On 20-Feb-16 22:41, Phil Corwin wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Jordan:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I am in full agreement with your statement:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> An independent legal analysis on the questions to hand isn't going to<br>
>> un-make the Board's intervention, isn't going to un-make days of<br>
>> delay. I also don't see how it can help to answer the substantive<br>
>> question raised…<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Indeed, seeking such an analysis is likely to add even further delay.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> We are already far past the timeline we were originally told must be<br>
>> adhered for completion of the Final Report to allow for the necessary<br>
>> review by the NTIA and other USG agencies, as well as for<br>
>> Congressional oversight of the transition and accountability<br>
>> proposals, and to thereby avoid the necessity for a further extension<br>
>> of the IANA contract past September 30, 2016. The Chartering<br>
>> Organizations, including the GNSO, already faced substantial<br>
>> challenges in completing their review and providing well considered<br>
>> positions on the twelve separate recommendations by March 9th – and<br>
>> that was before being informed by the Co-Chairs yesterday that<br>
>> delivery of the Final Report will be delayed by a minimum of five<br>
>> additional days.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I believe that the community has all the information required to<br>
>> resolve the remaining issue and that there is no need for additional<br>
>> legal analysis; and that community members who are unclear on the<br>
>> details of the present debate can obtain it from both their official<br>
>> chartering organization representative or from other active CCWG<br>
>> participants in whom they place trust.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Regards to all,<br>
>><br>
>> 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>
>> *From:*<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] *On Behalf<br>
>> Of *Jordan Carter<br>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 20, 2016 3:17 PM<br>
>> *To:* <a href="mailto:Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu">Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu</a><br>
>> *Cc:* <a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a>; <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> It is not even slightly clear why any such analysis would help with<br>
>> the current discussion. And it is very clear that keeping an item open<br>
>> to Marrakech is the wrong thing to do.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> We are talking about a very narrow point in a broader very simple<br>
>> situation: where GAC chooses to exercise its right to offer consensus<br>
>> advice, which comes with an obligation on ICANN to try and find a<br>
>> mutually agreeable path if disagreement arises.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> The working group has agreed that GAC, being uniquely empowered with<br>
>> that right, should not also be able to make decisions on community<br>
>> powers that relate to decisions related to that advice. So far, so<br>
>> good. The carve out. For a rare situation.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Then, to preserve a non-unanimity rule, some adjustments were made to<br>
>> the thresholds to assess community support / opposition in those<br>
>> cases. Those have been clearly documented by Becky.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> So having done all that, it appears there is now some confusion about<br>
>> what was agreed.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> All that needs to be found (all - hah!) is a path back to closure.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> But let's be clear. We are once again after the end of this process<br>
>> re-opening something at the behest of ICANN's board, with messages<br>
>> that were not clear and seek to second guess the work of the CCWG. The<br>
>> completion of the group's work in times for Marrakech is therefore at<br>
>> risk, again (last time it meant Dublin was at risk).<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> All I want is for people to take responsibility for the consequences<br>
>> of their decisions.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> For me, as a voting member of the ccwg, I will go with whatever<br>
>> approach closes this out as quickly as possible. But I am no longer<br>
>> confident that that will be quick enough to salvage this process.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> An independent legal analysis on the questions to hand isn't going to<br>
>> un-make the Board's intervention, isn't going to un-make days of<br>
>> delay. I also don't see how it can help to answer the substantive<br>
>> question raised, but perhaps, Megan, you could set out how it might?<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Cheers<br>
>><br>
>> Jordan<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Sunday, 21 February 2016, <<a href="mailto:Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu">Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu">Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu</a>>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> I wonder if an objective, independent analysis from the external legal<br>
>> counsel (or based on their already extensive assessments) would help<br>
>> to focus the real impact/change from status quo of the contentious<br>
>> part of the proposal? This could permit all members, participants and,<br>
>> in particular those who have not had the "advantage" of following the<br>
>> discussions in detail to analyse the relative impact from their<br>
>> perspectives.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Megan<br>
>><br>
>> Sent from my iPad<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 20 Feb 2016, at 01:22, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx">leonfelipe@sanchez.mx</a><br>
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','<a href="mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx">leonfelipe@sanchez.mx</a>');>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Dear all,<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today<br>
>> (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We<br>
>> are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to<br>
>> consider options as a full group.<br>
>><br>
>> There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for<br>
>> Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our<br>
>> report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC<br>
>> Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose<br>
>> compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f.<br>
>> the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at<br>
>> <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw</a>).<br>
>><br>
>> We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority<br>
>> statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO,<br>
>> and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker,<br>
>> posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining<br>
>> Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed<br>
>> on 17 February:<br>
>> <a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/011056.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/011056.html</a>.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for<br>
>> those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within<br>
>> their respective communities, to build bridges and promote<br>
>> compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable<br>
>> level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder<br>
>> nature of the process.<br>
>><br>
>> It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we<br>
>> published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential<br>
>> consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process.<br>
>><br>
>> We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final<br>
>> Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would<br>
>> like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full<br>
>> group on next Tuesday’s CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC.<br>
>> There are many options and directions the group can take at this<br>
>> stage, each with different implications and considerations, and<br>
>> these options should be discussed as a group.<br>
>><br>
>> Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication<br>
>> on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also<br>
>> reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the<br>
>> change in our schedule.<br>
>><br>
>> As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every<br>
>> Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the<br>
>> ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from<br>
>> confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize<br>
>> each other’s value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe<br>
>> that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to<br>
>> act accordingly.<br>
>><br>
>> Thank you,<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Thomas, León, Mathieu<br>
>><br>
>> /CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs/<br>
>><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>
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','<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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Jordan Carter<br>
>> Chief Executive, InternetNZ<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="tel:%2B64-21-442-649" value="+6421442649">+64-21-442-649</a> | <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>><br>
>><br>
>> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity<br>
>><br>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>><br>
>> No virus found in this message.<br>
>> Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">www.avg.com</a> <<a href="http://www.avg.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.avg.com</a>><br>
>> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16<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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> ---<br>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
> <a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>