<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I don't think the questions before use are inherently legal ones, such that our lawyers will be able to tell us which one is "better." Both option are clearly allowed by law. We have policy and judgment calls to make, and that falls to the CCWG to decide, and to our co-chairs to referee, not our lawyers. While I would be curious to know their point of view, it would be just that -- a point of view.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">We're going to have to work this one out ourselves.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><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><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div>Kavouss</div></font></span></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><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>Kavousd<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<br>
</span><div><div>> On 20 Feb 2016, at 21:58, Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">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>
>> *<a href="tel:202-559-8597" value="+12025598597" target="_blank">202-559-8597</a>/Direct*<br>
>><br>
>> *<a href="tel:202-559-8750" value="+12025598750" target="_blank">202-559-8750</a>/Fax*<br>
>><br>
>> *<a href="tel:202-255-6172" value="+12022556172" target="_blank">202-255-6172</a>/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" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu</a><br>
>> *Cc:* <a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org" target="_blank">acct-staff@icann.org</a>; <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">leonfelipe@sanchez.mx</a><br>
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','<a href="mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx" target="_blank">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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>');><br>
>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">+64-21-442-649</a> | <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a> <<a href="http://www.avg.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>