[CCWG-ACCT] the difference between a PDP and GAC Advice...

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Mon Feb 1 22:51:16 UTC 2016

Dear Becky
There are 7 SOs(ACs . We can not kill ourselves to satisfy GNSO
There is no way that one single entity / community be satisfied on the
expense of other entity/Community dissatisfaction.
If GAC be encouraged to agree reluctantly to ST18 that is fantastic even
with 60% which is one vote below 66% .
I do not see difference.
I always admire your ability and in-depth knowledge but we are Under time
We have worked very hard for 14 Months
I spent 10-14 days every dax on this CCWG
I wish to have a result that either everybody is equally happy or equally
That is my principle throughout my life.
I am not admitted to any bar but I am not stupid either
Kavouss ,

2016-02-01 23:40 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>:

> Kavouss,  with respect, Jorge asked me a question and I am providing an
> answer.   As previously indicated, I am also supportive of your 60%
> proposal, although I do not believe that will fully resolve very serious
> concerns that appear very likely at this point to result in the GNSO
> objecting to various recommendations (1, 10, 11).
> *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>
> From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 5:11 PM
> To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>
> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] the difference between a PDP and GAC Advice...
> Becky
> I am puzzled about your analysis.
> You are rasing a fundamental structural changes or structual analysis that
> many may a) disagree and b) require time.
> Let me come back to the discussion on the last call
> Dispute between 4(5 PERSONS and the rest on 66% or 51% AS SIMPLE AS THAT
> tHERE WAS NO pdp development issue at all.
> Why you wish to engage all of us in a discussions that may have
> fundamental disagreement on the concept.
> You may interpret the issue as you mentioned.
> GNSO supporting you becuase the GAC advice is tied up to PDP process.
> Before your suggestions there was no direct tandem between the two.
> Do you know the Board's reactions to your proposal?
> Do you know the legal pereople's view on your proposal?
> Do you know the reaction of ccNSO on your proposal
> Do you know the impact of your proposal on IANA TRANSITION.?
> ICG MAY HAVE DIFFERENT VIEW ON THAT due to the fact that ICG must formally
> receive the adviose of CWG on the matter
> You are proposing structral changes
> I am not conmfortable to that proposal
> Either 66% or 60% or 51% or no change
> Regards
> Kavouss
> 2016-02-01 22:48 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>:
>> Jorge asks why I am drawing a distinction between GAC Advice and the
>> output (e.g., a policy developed through a PDP) of a supporting
>> organization or this new “GNSO Guidance." The differences between a PDP (or
>> Guidance on implementation of a PDP) and GAC Advice are both structural and
>> substantive.   In short, the process for issuing GNSO policy and guidance
>> has built-in safeguards to prevent Mission creep and promote transparency
>> and public consultation.  For many reasons, including some that I consider
>> entirely appropriate, that’s not the case with GAC Advice.
>> On the one hand, the GAC can give Advice *on any topic* it likes.  Yes,
>> technically it must relate to “public policy” - but as we know that is a
>> very broad concept.  The GAC can also give that Advice *at any time* it
>> likes - before, during, or well after a PDP or even the Board’s acceptance
>> of a PDP.     There is no rule that says that GAC Advice must relate to a
>> topic within ICANN’s Mission or that such Advice must be consistent with
>> ICANN’s Bylaws.  Both the flexibility with respect to topic and timing mean
>> that GAC Advice can be disruptive to ongoing policy development and/or
>> implementation. And, under Rec. 11 as currently proposed, the Board must
>> accept that Advice unless 66% of the Board opposes it.  That’s the case no
>> matter what that Advice is and *even if a majority of the Board thinks
>> it would violate ICANN’s Bylaws to implement that Advice*.
>> A PDP, on the other hand, takes place in a highly structured environment
>> that is strictly controlled both by subject matter and sequencing.  Even
>> before the PDP really gets off the ground it is subject to review by
>> ICANN’s General Counsel as to whether or not it is within ICANN’s Mission.
>> That is a critical structural safeguard against scope creep that
>> distinguishes a PDP from GAC Advice.
>> The PDP process is highly structured, with numerous safeguards that
>> protect against scope creep and ensure transparency:
>> a. Final Issue Report requested by the Board, the GNSO Council
>> ("Council") or Advisory Committee. The issue report must affirmatively
>> address the following issues:
>>    - The proposed issue raised for consideration;
>>    - The identity of the party submitting the request for the Issue
>>    Report;
>>    - How that party is affected by the issue, if known;
>>    - Support for the issue to initiate the PDP, if known;
>>    - The opinion of the ICANN General Counsel regarding whether the
>>    issue proposed for consideration within the Policy Development Process is
>>    properly within the scope of the ICANN's mission, policy process and more
>>    specifically the role of the GNSO as set forth in the Bylaws.
>>    - The opinion of ICANN Staff as to whether the Council should
>>    initiate the PDP on the issue
>> b. Formal initiation of the Policy Development Process by the Council;
>> c. Formation of a Working Group or other designated work method;
>> d. Initial Report produced by a Working Group or other designated work
>> method;
>> e. Final Report produced by a Working Group, or other designated work
>> method, and forwarded to the Council for deliberation;
>> f. Council approval of PDP Recommendations contained in the Final
>> Report, by the required thresholds;
>> g. PDP Recommendations and Final Report shall be forwarded to the Board
>> through a Recommendations Report approved by the Council]; and
>> h. Board approval of PDP Recommendations.
>> The proposal to create “GNSO Guidance” doesn’t change things
>> dramatically – as proposed by the Policy and Implementation Working Group,
>> because such guidance "would typically involve clarification of, or
>> advice on existing gTLD policy recommendations.”
>> *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>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=KyzJ2YRQSlyTRtRfbIUxv1_GF8I-3NdORO-qh1WsWVw&s=aQ-lI6xEGkq1kLe1Y0PuYUMFb2ang6OjQcgdzB6RU0g&e=>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160201/909b3985/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list