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

Wed Feb 3 00:27:29 UTC 2016

Well done.  Humorous yet compelling.  I cede any claim to Paul's proposal back to you.
--
Paul Rosenzweig
Sent from myMail app for Android Tuesday, 02 February 2016, 07:15PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc at gmail.com> :

>Dear Co-Chairs,
>
>I do not think there is any procedure in the CCWG by which a proposal continues to be controlled by the party who originally proposed it.  We are not running under any parliamentary motion rules (e.g., Robert's Rules of Order) that might possibly provide for such a concept.  As such, any attempt to "withdraw" a proposal up for consideration must be deemed null and void and of no effect.
>
>Furthermore, I would note that the proposal, although originally made by Kavouss in a long and multi-branched email string, received  no attention until I placed it in an entirely new email and brought it to the specific attention of the CCWG.  It was my email that initiated discussion of the 60% proposal.  Therefore, I think it should more appropriately be called my proposal in any event.  I graciously allowed it to be called "Kavouss's proposal"; however, based on the facts, that is clearly a misnomer, since the work of the group is based on my email.  I would therefore request that the 60% proposal henceforth be called "Greg's Proposal."
>
>Greg
>
>P.S.
>
>For the avoidance of doubt, I hereby relinquish all right, claim and interest in the proposal, include without limitation any purported right to control its modification or combination with any proposal now in existence or hereafter proposed, except to the extent that I, as a participant, have an equal right with all other participants to discuss, agree with, disagree with, and propose modifications to such proposal or combination with any proposal in existence or hereafter proposed.  For purposes of clarity, I also waive all rights of publicity and privacy, trademark rights, moral rights, data rights, droit moral (to the extent different from "moral rights"), droit d'seigneur and naming rights, solely in connection with the use of the term "Greg's Proposal" in CCWG meetings, email lists, transcripts, recordings, Adobe Chat, Adobe Notes, oral conversation, sidebar emails, Skype conversations, Facebook posts or messages and Twitter "tweets" to refer to the proposal that the voting threshold by which the ICANN Board must "reject" or "determine to take an action inconsistent with" GAC "Advice" (meaning advice arrived at by the now-current definition of consensus formally used by the GAC) when the ICANN Board, in it sole discretion but consistent with applicable law, within its mission and in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws and any applicable procedures, votes on such "rejection" or "determination."
>
>On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Kavouss Arasteh  < kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com > wrote:
>>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
>>* 
>>2/3 Majority
>>* 
>>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 > :
>>>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 > :
>>>>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 >:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>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 > :
>>>>>>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 >:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>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 > :
>>>>>>>>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 > :
>>>>>>>>>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 > :
>>>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>>>>>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>>>>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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/20160203/22d8b42d/attachment-0001.html>