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

Wed Feb 3 00:09:15 UTC 2016

Dear Mr. Arasteh,
I understand where you are coming from.
However I don’t believe we have “formal” proposals. And so we can’t restrict participants from voicing support for one, or another or a combination of proposals; or opposition to one, or another or a combination of proposals.
If a CO knows that a particular option is absolutely a non-starter, they are certainly welcomed to let the meeting know.
We have a couple of meetings to try and make progress. I think we can be confident that the co-chairs will competently run things, as they have done so up to now, to progress the work as best they can towards consensus.

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 6:21 PM
To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>; gac at icann.org; gac at gac.icann.org; <gac-leadership at icann.org> <gac-leadership at icann.org>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>; Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
Cc: acct-staff at icann.org; Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of proposals discussed last night in context of Rec. #11

Dear CCWG members and participants

Dear GAC Members

 At CCWG call 81 ,in discussing REC.11 Annex 11 there was two alternatives for rejection of GAC Advice by the Board

1.     2/3 Majority

2.      Simple MAJORITY

Since there was a lengthy discussion, I proposed a compromise of 60% instead of THRESHOLD IN 1) and 2) above WITHOUT TOUCHING ANY ELEMENT OF rec.1 which was accepted by consensus

Someone talked about a creative action and proposed to retain 2/3 Majority in Rec.11 .Annex 11 but modify REC 1 by adding a phrase at paragraph 23 of that Rec , if I am not mistaken.

That proposal was made by Beckie .

These two proposal were on the table without being mutually inclusive

Today I observed that people not only wants to Modify Rec 1 ; disabling GAC to exercise its community power  not to be counted as one of the TWO SO/AC  IN CASE other part of comity invoke IRP in regard with ICANN action relating to GAC Advice alleged to exceed ICANN Mission  while maintaining 2/3 majority in Rec 11 BUT ALSO LOWERING THAT THRESHOLD TO 60%

This combination is inconsistent with my proposal

Moreover such course of action has not formally been approved, even if  unilaterally suggested by some people at the meeting and thus such amended proposal was not formally given to Beckie Group to discuss .

Since the proponent of amended BECKIE PROPOSAL insisting on his views,

I  have  formally withdrawn my initial 60% threshold proposal and stated that apart from Beckie initial proposal, no other alternative proposal could discussed at Beckie’s group without the approval of CCWG

Regards

Kavouss   .

2016-02-02 23:58 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>:
PAUL
There is no evidence that such decision was made by consensus
People might have said many thing
You can not just referring to unilateral statement in transcsript and take it as a consensus proposal
Pls transcript is transcrip those people who have spoken must understand that there is no valuse on unilateral decision .We are member of a group any  decision for study must be AGREED BY EVERY BODY
Regards

2016-02-02 23:54 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>:

Kavouss

You are wrong.  I read the transcript.

Sorry
Paul

--
Paul Rosenzweig
Sent from myMail app for Android
Tuesday, 02 February 2016, 05:53PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>:

Dear Paul

I am very sorry to tell you that:

Our mandate is limited to discuss the  initial Becky’s  proposal and mine only

Since I withdrew mine, if you want to make a new proposal that must be submitted to the next meeting of CCWG on 09 Feb. 2016

This group is not a test LAB for multiple number on proposal otherwise we will not end our work till 2017.

You can offer your proposal to the next CCWG MEETING

If agreed by consensus it will be discussed

Best Regards

2016-02-02 23:46 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3apaul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>:

That's ok.  If process requires I will advance the Aratesh/Burr proposal under my own name.  😊

--
Paul Rosenzweig
Sent from myMail app for Android
Tuesday, 02 February 2016, 05:42PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:

Dear Becky
Pls take out my proposal from the Table
I formally withdraw  MY PROPOSAL
Tks Kavouss

2016-02-02 23:34 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
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
Disagree TO THAT course of action
I case you insist I WILL IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAW MY PROPOSAL AND THEN WE GO BACK TO ccwg and rediscuss REC 11
Please kindly clarify your position
Once again if there would be any link between your proposal and 60% Please remove my proposal from the Table and go ahead with your own proposal only
I also disagree with any new proposal .We can not discuss for days and day for receiving creative proposal
Let us be realistic rather than creative.
Best Regards
Kavouss

2016-02-02 23:24 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
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<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aBecky.Burr@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  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@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/20160203/0dc775a5/attachment-0001.html>