<div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:16pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">Dear Co-Chairs</font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:16pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">The number Governments
expressing /manifesting serious concerns on the three Recommendations, 1, 2 and
mainly 11 is growing. Now 12 countries have formally manifest their objections</font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:16pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">These concerns are focused on
the manner the CCWG attempting to treat GAC in an imbalance manner with
respect to other ICANN Constituencies .The CCWG Co- Chairs are urged to explore
all ways and means to <span> </span>adequately respond
to these growing serious concerns taking into account the long
standing principle of universality ,fairness and equal treatments of all
Multistakeholders communities in an inclusive, transparent and democratic
manner</font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:16pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">We are members of one family
, ICANN Family , and thus deserve to be <span> </span>properly, equally and fairly treated </font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:16pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">There are still opportunity
/opportunities to remedy the cause of these concerns</font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><ol style="list-style-type:decimal;direction:ltr"><li style="font-style:normal;font-weight:normal"><p style="font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:16pt">We may go
back to call 80 on Rec 11 with two options of Simple Majority and 2/3 FOR THE
REJECTION OF GAC ADVICE BY THE BOARD and try to further discus that in removing
the famous so-called Carve-Out which is the <span> </span>main cause of some ,if not all ,of these
concerns <span> </span>.</span></p></li><li style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal"><p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:16pt">Two <span> </span>address
the threshold of 4 SO/AC required to recall the entire Board in all cases or at
least for cases in which IRP is not available</span></p></li><li style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal"><p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:16pt">Apply the Carve-out all SOs/ACs or to all ACs Treat and
still discuss the threshold of 4 SOs / ACs for the removal of the entire Board</span></p></li><li style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:16pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal"><p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:0pt"><font color="#ff0000"><strong><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:16pt">Should you not succeed to find
compromise then submit multiple options to NTIA?</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span></strong></font></p></li></ol><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt 18pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:16pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">Irrespective
of that amend Annexes 1 and 2 in regard with the adjustments of the threshold
if the No. of SOS &ACs changed in either direction and exempt the Board
Recall for that threshold </font></span></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt 18pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:16pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">Kavouss </font></span></div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-02-21 9:01 GMT+01:00 <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:epilisse@gmail.com" target="_blank">epilisse@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div name="messageBodySection">I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting.<br>
<br>
In any case let me place the current state on the record:<br>
<br>
Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly.<br>
<br>
But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it.<br>
<br>
These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living.<br>
<br>
Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement.<br>
<br>
In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line.<br>
<br>
Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess.<br>
<br>
<br>
el</div>
<div name="messageSignatureSection"><br>
--<br>
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini</div><span>
<div name="messageReplySection"><br>
On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" target="_blank">egmorris1@toast.net</a>>, wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif;font-size:12px"></span>
<div><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif;font-size:12px">+2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions. </span></div>
<div><br></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</span></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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>