[CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues

[Burr, Becky]

That does not limit the preceding more general statement of principle that
says the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an
exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board’s implement.




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>




On 2/5/16, 11:03 AM, "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch"
<Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

>What about your following sentence:?
>
>In other words, the GAC  would not be counted in the “no more than two
>SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s
>implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s
>Mission.
>
>seems clear that it refers the carve-out to the community IRP
>
>best
>
>Jorge
>
>Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>
>Am 05.02.2016 um 16:54 schrieb Burr, Becky
><Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>:
>
>Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the
>"GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of
>community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC
>Advice.²  That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below.  I see no
>principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit
>this to the IRP.
>
>
>
>
>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://neustar.biz>
><http://www.neustar.biz>
>
>
>
>
>On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli"
><olgacavalli at gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>Brett
>there was no vote on the call yesteday
>best
>Olga
>
>El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett
><Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>>
>escribió:
>
>Kavouss,
>
>Becky responded to this yesterday:
>
>Julia ­ I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table
>when I typed this up.  My proposal from the beginning related to Board
>action on GAC Advice.  I will resend my original email demonstrating
>this.
>
>I expect she will follow up soon.
>
>Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the GAC
>carve out to IRP.
>
>I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, but
>it has to be as a package including the most recent version of Becky's
>text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday.
>
>If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve this by
>Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have arrived at a
>tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it.
>
>Best,
>
>Brett
>
>
>
>On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
><kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com><mailto:kavous
>s.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>Dear Beckie
>As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have serious
>concerns about your revised text as currently contained in the Package,
>Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and send it to us
>May I request you to kindly replace your current text with your initial
>one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED TEXT for the package on the
>mailing list for our Monday discussion.
>As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be more
>comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr revised text
>went much beyond your the objectives of your initial text the concept if
>which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people.
>Awaiting your action , I remain
>Regards
>Kavousd
>
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10,
><Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jo
>rge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
><Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jo
>rge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
>
>Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky
>
>This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to (highlights
>are mine, but text is unchanged):
>
>==
>
>Von:
>accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
>ss-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
>oss-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.org>>
>[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von
>Burr, Becky
>Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05
>An: Greg Shatan
><gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatan
>ipc at gmail.com>>; Mueller,
>Milton L 
><milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu><mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
>Cc:
>accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-commu
>nity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm
>unity at icann.org<mailto:unity at icann.org>>
>Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC
>consensus, and finishing
>
>I have a proposal for discussion.
>
>Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only
>consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission.  What if we accept
>the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in
>a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power
>designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.  In
>other words, the GAC  would not be counted in the ³no more than two
>SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s
>implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s
>Mission.
>
>I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might
>otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the
>2/3rds rejection threshold.
>
>Just a thought -
>
>===
>
>Regards
>
>Jorge
>
>
>________________________________
>Brett Schaefer
>Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
>Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
>Security and Foreign Policy
>The Heritage Foundation
>214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
>Washington, DC 20002
>202-608-6097
>
>heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.
>org&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP
>8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdCMQmeKyfvfgKztN_5hTNBQ&s=FDOmkRL9aMpNQpU6
>GLyFoxSd_SrpW5QS_fiz3xNHU-E&e=
>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage
>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa
>hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGNu
>8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= >
>Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
>Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41
>An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
><Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jo
>rge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
>Cc: <jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>>
><jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>>;
><accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm
>unity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com
>munity at icann.org<mailto:munity at icann.org>>>
><accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm
>unity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com
>munity at icann.org<mailto:munity at icann.org>>>; Becky Burr
><Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr at n
>eustar.biz>>; Thomas Rickert
><thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net><mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>
>; Mathieu Weill
><Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weil
>l at afnic.fr>>; León Felipe
>Sánchez Ambía 
><leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe at san
>chez.mx>>;
>Schneider Thomas BAKOM
><Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch><m
>ailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>>
>Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation
>1 and 11 issues
>
>Dear Beckie,
>Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member
>requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial Text
>. This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page deal" if
>includes your original text.
>Regards
>Kavouss
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26,
><Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jo
>rge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
><Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jo
>rge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
>Dear Kavouss
>
>In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of community
>IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many
>concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations.
>
>Regards
>
>Jorge
>
>Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
>Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25
>An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
><Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jo
>rge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
>Cc: <jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>>
><jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>>;
><accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm
>unity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com
>munity at icann.org<mailto:munity at icann.org>>>
><accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm
>unity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com
>munity at icann.org<mailto:munity at icann.org>>>
>Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
>and 11 issues
>
>Dear All,
>Why Not taking initial Beckie,s
>Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not  get into other
>questions resulted from het revised text.
>Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call
>Regards
>Kavousd
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58,
><Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jo
>rge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
><Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jo
>rge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
>Dear all
>
>I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which probably
>did not get enough attention due to the other discussions we were having
>yesterday.
>
>A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any community
>decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad and mean a
>complete exclusion of the GAC from any community decisions which are
>relevant to it.
>
>This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was
>directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant.
>
>Regards
>
>Jorge
>
>Von:
>accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
>ss-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
>oss-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.org>>
>[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von
>Julia Katja Wolman
>Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34
>An: 'CCWG Accountability'
><accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm
>unity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com
>munity at icann.org<mailto:munity at icann.org>>>
>Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1
>and 11 issues
>
>Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all
>
>Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in order to
>develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the proposed text
>for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by Becky (email of 2
>February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion:
>
>³
>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 Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power
>for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s implementation of
>GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. 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 Board¹s 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 community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause
>ICANN to violate its Bylaws.²
>
>However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text
>suggested by Brett  (email of 2 February). Our understanding is that the
>above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision based on GAC
>advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it refers to the
>community IRP to challenge such a Board decision based on GAC advice. As
>such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) should be the text to be
>considered at today¹s call.
>
>Best regards,
>
>
>Finn and Julia
>
>
>
>Julia Katja Wolman
>
>DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
>
>Dahlerups Pakhus
>Langelinie Allé 17
>DK-2100 København Ø
>Telephone: +45 3529 1000
>Direct: +45 35291308
>E-mail: jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>
>
>www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3
>A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm
>6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdCMQmeKyfvfgKztN_5
>hTNBQ&s=vg2MZzQiAfSCjAitWGLmeRUMzh0veJqwc1AviznVzWs&e=
>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
>3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif
>zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWw
>WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= >
>
>MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
>
>P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
>
>
>
>
>Fra:
>accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
>ss-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
>oss-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.org>>
>[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] På vegne af
>Burr, Becky
>Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19
>Til: Kavouss Arasteh;
>accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-commu
>nity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm
>unity at icann.org<mailto:unity at icann.org>>; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert;
>León Felipe Sánchez
>Ambía
>Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11
>issues
>
>Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach.  We have all been
>working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a
>consensus proposal.  My understanding is that this is designed to
>resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11.  I am supportive of
>this package deal, as described below (the description below was also
>included in Kavouss¹ email).  I appreciate the collaborative spirit we
>have brought to the table and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call
>tomorrow to reach consensus!
>
>
>1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
>·      Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
>
>The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the
>Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power
>for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s 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 Board¹s 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 community¹s 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 Board¹s 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.
>2.   Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of
>GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority
>requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the
>standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
>   3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8
>February)
>
>*    Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above
>as first final reading;
>*    Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above
>as first final reading; and
>*   Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above
>as first final reading.
>4.   Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd
>final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting
>delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus
>and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated
>Recommendation 11 calls).
>
>
>
>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://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz>
>
>From: Kavouss Arasteh
><kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com><mailto:kavous
>s.arasteh at gmail.com>>
>Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM
>To: Accountability Community
><accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm
>unity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com
>munity at icann.org<mailto:munity at icann.org>>>, Becky Burr
><becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr at n
>eustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill
><Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.Weil
>l at afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert
><thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net><mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>
>, León Felipe Sánchez
>Ambía 
><leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe at san
>chez.mx>>
>Subject: <no subject>
>
>
>Dear Esteemed and respectful  CCWG Colleagues
>
>First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you:
>We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a coordinated
>manner  on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of assisting the
>CCWG  in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some adjustments in
>Recommendation 1  which enable CCWG to assemble the Supplementary
>Report. This Report needs to be  issued  well in advance of the
>Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA stewardship
>transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is working hard to
>agree a compromise in the current round of virtual meetings,
>
>I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we need
>to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible set of
>solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely insist on the
>wishes, requirements and expectations of every single SO and AC but on
>the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to the extent practiceable
>and possible  the entire community.
>
>We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well as
>those of Recommendation 11
>
>We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the
>interested parties together.
>
>However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network
>connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of the
>connection  are sometimes more complex to  compared with the entire
>network to provide an overall inclusive connection.
>
>We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last
>kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last kilometer
>which located in a rocky and mountainous area
>
>We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our current
>position which is different from each other and not rule out compromise
>as a backward step. Our role  is to make concession towards each other
>position  .We need to take every possible initiative to move forward to
>timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability.
>
>Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a
>participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should really
>be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently
>
>To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be
>accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ decomposed .
>
>The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical
>
>1.  Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed  by Beckie
>2.  Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged
>3.  Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the
>Board
>4.  Maintain the rest of Recommendation  11 Unchanged
>5.  No other  discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation
>6.  Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be
>held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is a
>delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the CCWG to
>take it as it is
>
>I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are of
>course entirely free to reject my suggestions.  Please note that my
>proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming change
>to Recommendation 2.  To be consistent with our standard procedures, I
>suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the compromise during our
>Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb and 8 Feb) and the 2nd final
>reading during our regular call on 9 Feb.  Please note that I have also
>included Malcolm¹s requested clarification regarding no changes with
>respect to presumptions or standard of review.  I do not believe that
>this text is strictly necessary, but in the interests of getting
>everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it.
>
>Package Deal
>
>1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2
>
>
>
>·      Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:
>
>
>
>The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the
>Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community power
>for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s 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 Board¹s 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 community¹s 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 Board¹s 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.
>
>
>
>2.   Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of
>GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority
>requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the
>standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice.
>
>
>
>3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8
>February)
>
>
>
>·      Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above
>as first final reading;
>
>·      Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above
>as first final reading; and
>
>·      Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described
>above as first final reading.
>
>
>
>4.   Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd
>final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting
>delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus
>and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on Dedicated
>Recommendation 11 calls).
>
>Kavouss
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu
>nity at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm
>unity at icann.org<mailto:unity at icann.org>>
>
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO
>ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
>
><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
>_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe
>OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e
>= >
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu
>nity at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm
>unity at icann.org<mailto:unity at icann.org>>
>
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO
>ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu
>nity at icann.org>
>
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeO
>ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu
>nity at icann.org>
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU
>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXY
>oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu
>nity at icann.org>
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU
>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdC
>MQmeKyfvfgKztN_5hTNBQ&s=VTk9IqV37-xLyMJG8fHErifAzzYMBIZoGD-_IRZR5oA&e=