[CCWG-ACCT] Summary of proposals discussed last night in context of Rec. #11

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue Feb 2 22:24:41 UTC 2016

Your proposal did not have such statement
Your proposal was clearly mentioned retaining 2/3 and modifying Rec1 to
have an overall acceptance.
This will cause considerable poblem and create serious of open-ended
My question to you was to clarify that your question did not refer toeither
60% or simple majority . Let us go back to the discussions on call 81 There
was two alternative mentioned by Steve ,
- 2/3
I proposed a middfle ground 60%
You then proposed that
1.MOD. Rec 1  in disabling GAC  not to participate in ommunity empowering
exercise when IRP is invoked by community for Board's actions exceeding its
Mission and
2. Retain 2/3 as contained in Rec 11 Annex 11
iT IS NOT ADMITTED. We agreed to work on your initial proposal and mine
Now you implictly changing your proposal

2016-02-02 23:10 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>:

> I have attempted to set out the proposals discussed last night.
> *Aresteh Proposal*:
> Modify Rec. #11/ Annex 11 to provide that GAC Advice supported by
> consensus, defined as general agreement in the absence of a formal
> objection, may be rejected only by a vote of at least *60%* of the
> Board.  All other requirements (e.g., rationale to be provided, etc.)
> unchanged.  This proposal is strictly limited to Recommendation 11 Annex
> 11 without any change to Recommendation 1 as it stands on 02 February 2016.
> *Hutty Gloss on 60% Threshold*:  Add language to ensure that
> supermajority requirement creates no new expectation of approval or
> otherwise modify the Board’s standard of review of GAC Advice.
> *Burr Proposal*:
> ·      Modify Rec #1/Annex 1:  Add the following to the end of Paragraph
> 23.
> *The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the
> Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for
> the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC
> Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community
> deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards
> or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference
> call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power.
> This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with
> the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC
> Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the
> community’s power to challenge such Board decisions.*
> ·      Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and
> add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require
> the support of four SOs or ACs:
> *The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC
> may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is
> proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice
> and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be
> validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.  *
> Kavouss has asked whether my proposal is paired to a 66% threshold, 60%
> threshold or simple majority for rejecting GAC Advice.  It is not
> inconsistent with any of those outcomes.
> *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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160202/64590f3a/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list