[CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution

Burr, Becky Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
Mon Feb 1 16:43:06 UTC 2016


Kavouss, I do not disagree with the 60%, I think it improves the current
situation. 


J. Beckwith Burr 
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy
General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz
<http://www.neustar.biz>




On 2/1/16, 11:40 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

>Dear Becky
>While I fully agree with your vision
>It would require extensive analysis which at this stage would further
>delay our work.
>It may also create additional obstacle that required time.
>Pls kindly agree with 60% not because I gave suggested but due to its
>dimple applications d time constrains
>Regards
>Kavousd
> 
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 1 Feb 2016, at 16:48, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:
>> 
>> Kavouss¹ proposal (Board may reject GAC Advice only with support of 60%
>>of
>> its members) is simple and it is a compromise - essentially midway
>>between
>> a majority and a 2/3rds standard.
>> 
>> My proposal attempts to address some of the structural concerns that
>>arise
>> when you look at Recommendations 1, 10 and 11 together.  Specifically,
>>it
>> is intended to address the ³2 bites at the apple² situation when (1) the
>> GAC issues Advice, which is then accepted by the Board - even where a
>> majority (but not 60% or 66%) of the Board opposes that and (2) the
>> community would like to consider challenging the Board¹s implementation
>>as
>> exceeding the scope of ICANN¹s Mission.  In that situation, the GAC has
>> indicated that it will participate in the escalation decision regarding
>> invocation a community power, for example through an IRP.  I propose
>>that
>> we should maintain the current threshold (e.g., no more than 2 SO/ACs
>> object), but that the GAC¹s vote should not be counted to block use of a
>> community power to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.
>>I
>> would note that Jorge notes that this principle should be applied across
>> the Board.  I don¹t agree, as I think that GAC Advice is not comparable
>>to
>> the output of, for example, a PDP process.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> J. Beckwith Burr
>> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy
>> General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
>> Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz
>> <http://www.neustar.biz>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 2/1/16, 10:26 AM, "Phil Buckingham" <phil at dotadvice.co.uk> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear Kavouss,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your compromise proposal/ solution. The CCWG really does
>>> need
>>> to get over this  huge hurdle.
>>> I am struggling to keep to up.
>>> In preparation for the call tomorrow , could you/ Co Chairs  summarise
>>> your
>>> and Becky ' alternative recommendation.  The key question to me is
>>>which
>>> is
>>> easier to implement and the simplest to understand.
>>> Many thanks,
>>> Phil
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Kavouss Arasteh
>>> Sent: 01 February 2016 13:35
>>> To: Schaefer, Brett
>>> Cc: acct-staff at icann.org; Thomas Rickert; CCWG Accountability
>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution
>>> 
>>> Dear Brett
>>> I think it id more straight forward to take 60% than Becky ,s proposal
>>>not
>>> because mine is better but more simpler.
>>> Regards
>>> I appeal to you and your distinguished colleagues  as well as Becky to
>>> kindly consider 60% with favourable thought Kavouss
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>>> On 1 Feb 2016, at 13:21, Schaefer, Brett
>>>>><Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't the arguments against the 2/3
>>>>requirement,
>>> which is after all 66%, apply just as much to the 60% proposal?
>>>> 
>>>> I think Becky's proposal gets much closer to addressing the substance
>>>>of
>>> the concerns raised.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> Brett Schaefer
>>>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
>>>> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
>>>> Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation
>>>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
>>>> Washington, DC 20002
>>>> 202-608-6097
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__herita
>>>>ge
>>>> 
>>>>.org_&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxd
>>>>Ya
>>>> 
>>>>hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=TnI7iy91U7
>>>>8v
>>>> r2iGqvQgUvyuD2Gjh7I0sPPGfgh1zlk&e= >
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jan 31, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Greg Shatan
>>>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> All,
>>>> 
>>>> I wanted to pluck this suggestion out of the email swamp.
>>>> 
>>>> Kavouss made an alternative proposal concerning another threshold
>>>> between
>>> Simple Majority and 2/3 -- the alternative threshold is 60%.
>>>> 
>>>> Speaking only for myself, this could be a simple but creative way out
>>>>of
>>> the current situation.  It is a literally a middle ground between the
>>> current majority threshold and the previously proposed 2/3 threshold:
>>>> 
>>>> Votes
>>>> 
>>>> Percentage
>>>> 
>>>> Result
>>>> 
>>>> 8/16
>>>> 
>>>> 50%
>>>> 
>>>> No
>>>> 
>>>> 9/16
>>>> 
>>>> 56.25%
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, by majority
>>>> 
>>>> 10/16
>>>> 
>>>> 62.50%
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, if by 60%
>>>> 
>>>> 11/16
>>>> 
>>>> 68.75%
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, if by 2/3
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> This would require one more vote than the current threshold and one
>>>>less
>>> vote than the 2/3 threshold.  Win/win?
>>>> 
>>>> Greg
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
>>>> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> Dear Co-Chairs
>>>> Pls kindly confirm that you have received my last alternative proposal
>>>> concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3. This
>>>> alternative threshould is 60% There has been many cases considered
>>>> with that level of threshold Pls confirm its recption and confirm
>>>> actions to be taken before you go to poll Awaiting for your reply
>>>> Kavouss
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [...]
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C
>>>> ommunity at icann.org>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm
>>>>an
>>>> 
>>>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL
>>>>C_
>>>> 
>>>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5v
>>>>bn
>>>> 
>>>>Y6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&
>>>>e=
>>>> <h
>>>> ttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C
>>>> ommunity at icann.org>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm
>>>>an
>>>> 
>>>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL
>>>>C_
>>>> 
>>>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5v
>>>>bn
>>>> 
>>>>Y6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&
>>>>e=
>>>> <h
>>>> ttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C
>>>> ommunity at icann.org>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm
>>>>an
>>>> 
>>>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL
>>>>C_
>>>> 
>>>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5v
>>>>bn
>>>> 
>>>>Y6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&
>>>>e=
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> 
>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>>n_
>>> 
>>>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>>lU
>>> 
>>>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY
>>>6b
>>> FNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&e=
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> 
>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>>n_
>>> 
>>>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>>lU
>>> 
>>>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY
>>>6b
>>> FNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&e=
>> 



More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list