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

Tue Feb 2 22:32:51 UTC 2016

When I originally proposed this approach it was in the context of the 2/3rds threshold.  I can still get behind that, but I do not think my proposal is at all  is inconsistent with a 60% threshold.  I am interested in finding a compromise or series of compromises that addresses the legitimate concerns still being expressed by CCWG members and participants, and by the membership of the GNSO more broadly, and that allows us to reach closure on the CCWG-Accountability Proposal.  Frankly, listening to the conversation last night I don’t think there is sufficient support for your proposal or my proposal by itself – but MAYBE we can create consensus around the combination.   So I am not standing on ceremony.

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<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 5:24 PM
To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>
Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>, "acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>" <acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of proposals discussed last night in context of Rec. #11

Becky
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 argument
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
SIMPLE MAJORITY
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
YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR PROPOSAL
iT IS NOT ADMITTED. We agreed to work on your initial proposal and mine
Now you implictly changing your proposal
Disagreed
Regards
Kavouss

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

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<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932>  Mobile:+1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>/neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto: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=9D893Kh4NksD_ktj-zlY67hTzAdRoiyc6UfVAQ7ilwI&s=SNQUAaF5jKY_5NIUnFPfFCyeKPnpoqpeP9_Wxv6SJjI&e=>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160202/cd8a8744/attachment-0001.html>