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

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Fri Feb 5 16:43:25 UTC 2016


Dear Paul
I am not i favour of Vote this is why I proposed 60% instead of 2/3 (Rec. 11) and
Beckie proposed another element which relates to Rec.1 
Pls let us not to VOTE
KAVOUSD

Sent from my iPhone

> On 5 Feb 2016, at 17:23, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
> 
> Agree completely.  The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the
> last, best final offer.  If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote
> of the members and move on.
> 
> Paul
> 
> Paul Rosenzweig
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> Link to my PGP Key
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz] 
> Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM
> To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli at gmail.com>; Schaefer, Brett
> <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
> Cc: <thomas at rickert.net> <thomas at rickert.net>;
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11
> issues
> 
> 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://www.neustar.biz>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <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> 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>> 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>>
>>> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.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-cr
>>> 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>>; Mueller,
>>> Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
>>> Cc: 
>>> accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm
>>> 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=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>>
>>> Cc: <jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>>
>>> <jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>>;
>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com
>>> munity at icann.org>>
>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com
>>> munity at icann.org>>; Becky Burr
>>> <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>; Thomas Rickert
>>> <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>; Mathieu Weill
>>> <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>>; León Felipe
>>> Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>;
>>> Schneider Thomas BAKOM
>>> <Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch<mailto: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>>
>>> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.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>>
>>> Cc: <jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>>
>>> <jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>>;
>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com
>>> munity at icann.org>>
>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com
>>> 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>>
>>> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.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-cr
>>> 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-com
>>> 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>
>>> 
>>> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<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-cr
>>> 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-comm
>>> 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://www.neustar.biz>
>>> 
>>> From: Kavouss Arasteh
>>> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.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-com
>>> munity at icann.org>>, Becky Burr
>>> <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill
>>> <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert
>>> <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez
>>> Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.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-Comm
>>> 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-Comm
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 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
>> 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
> 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


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list