It is not even slightly clear why any such analysis would help with the current discussion. And it is very clear that keeping an item open to Marrakech is the wrong thing to do.<div><br></div><div>We are talking about a very narrow point in a broader very simple situation: where GAC chooses to exercise its right to offer consensus advice, which comes with an obligation on ICANN to try and find a mutually agreeable path if disagreement arises. </div><div><br></div><div>The working group has agreed that GAC, being uniquely empowered with that right, should not also be able to make decisions on community powers that relate to decisions related to that advice. So far, so good. The carve out. For a rare situation.</div><div><br></div><div>Then, to preserve a non-unanimity rule, some adjustments were made to the thresholds to assess community support / opposition in those cases. Those have been clearly documented by Becky.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>So having done all that, it appears there is now some confusion about what was agreed.</div><div><br></div><div>All that needs to be found (all - hah!) is a path back to closure. </div><div><br></div><div>But let's be clear. We are once again after the end of this process re-opening something at the behest of ICANN's board, with messages that were not clear and seek to second guess the work of the CCWG. The completion of the group's work in times for Marrakech is therefore at risk, again (last time it meant Dublin was at risk).</div><div><br></div>All I want is for people to take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions.<div><br></div><div>For me, as a voting member of the ccwg, I will go with whatever approach closes this out as quickly as possible. But I am no longer confident that that will be quick enough to salvage this process.</div><div><br></div><div>An independent legal analysis on the questions to hand isn't going to un-make the Board's intervention, isn't going to un-make days of delay. I also don't see how it can help to answer the substantive question raised, but perhaps, Megan, you could set out how it might?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Cheers</div><div>Jordan <br><div><br>On Sunday, 21 February 2016, <<a href="mailto:Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu">Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div>I wonder if an objective, independent analysis from the external legal counsel (or based on their already extensive assessments) would help to focus the real impact/change from status quo of the contentious part of the proposal? This could permit all members,
participants and, in particular those who have not had the "advantage" of following the discussions in detail to analyse the relative impact from their perspectives. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Megan<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPad</div>
<div><br>
On 20 Feb 2016, at 01:22, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','leonfelipe@sanchez.mx');" target="_blank">leonfelipe@sanchez.mx</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Dear all, <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options
as a full group. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then,
we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw</a>). </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently
on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February:
<a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/011056.html" target="_blank">
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/011056.html</a>.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains
to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday’s CCWG-Accountability
call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and
recognize each other’s value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span>Thank you,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Thomas, León, Mathieu</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><br>
<span><a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></span><br>
<span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div><br><br>-- <br>Jordan Carter<br>Chief Executive, InternetNZ<p>+64-21-442-649 | <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a><p>Sent on the run, apologies for brevity<br></p></p>