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

Drazek, Keith kdrazek at verisign.com
Fri Feb 5 19:40:23 UTC 2016


Thanks Jorge, 

A majority of the GNSO's constituent groups view the combination of Rec-1, Rec-10 and Rec-11 as "interlinked." The majority of GNSO groups (sufficient to reject) view ANY change of Board voting threshold for GAC consensus advice to be highly problematic. The GNSO's willingness to consider and accept Kavouss' suggested compromise of 60% is entirely dependent upon the further clarifications suggested by Becky in the Arasteh/Burr proposal.

I've attached the GNSO Council comments, which are a summary of the GNSO groups comments, for your further review. Here are the relevant texts:

>From the GNSO Comments on Rec-1:  

	"Some in the GNSO have identified a clear link with Recommendations #10 & #11 and are of the view that the current balance between SO/ACs needs to be preserved in the Empowered Community, 	especially with respect to the GAC." [This means the status quo should be maintained -- the GAC should remain advisory and not have a decisional role.]

>From the GNSO Comment on Rec-10:

	"There are some concerns within the GNSO with the top down nature of accountability reviews, and the exemption of the GAC from this community requirement. It is also troubling that the GAC, further 	empowered if Recommendations #1 and #11 are adopted, would be exempted from the same periodic reviews as the other SO/ACs. All participants in the Community Mechanism should be subject to 	equivalent accountability reviews."

>From the GNSO Comment on Rec-11:

	"There is broad opposition to this recommendation as written. Most SG/Cs do not support the proposal to raise the threshold for a Board vote to reject GAC advice. All expressed serious concerns over the
	lack of specificity in the recommendation in relation to the requirements for GAC advice (such as the provision of rationale) and the possibility that this recommendation, if adopted, could unduly change 	the nature of the Board-GAC relationship and/or the position of the GAC vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs also believe that any CCWG recommendation on this topic should retain the current flexibility 	in the Bylaws where the Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in order to reject GAC advice."

	"IPC, NCSG and the Registrars SG expressly objected to changing and specifying the threshold for Board action; the Registries SG and ISPCP Constituency did not object expressly but highlighted significant 	concerns about the implications of such a change. The Registries SG stated it was unlikely to support the 2/3 threshold for Board action unless three additional requirements (provision of a rationale, 		consistency with ICANN bylaws and within GAC scope, and defined consensus) applied to such GAC Advice. While BC and NPOC supported the change, both nevertheless also noted concerns over the 	implications, with the BC's support expressly conditioned upon certain qualifications being made to the proposal."

Regards,
Keith


-----Original Message-----
From: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch] 
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 2:16 PM
To: Drazek, Keith
Cc: RPEREZGA at minetur.es; jbladel at godaddy.com; thomas at rickert.net; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues

Dear Keith

I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements?

The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right?

Best

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

> Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>:
> 
> Dear Jorge,
> 
> Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations.
> 
> The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it.
> 
> If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute.
> 
> Regards,
> Keith
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch]
> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM
> To: Drazek, Keith
> Cc: RPEREZGA at minetur.es; jbladel at godaddy.com; thomas at rickert.net; 
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 
> and 11 issues
> 
> Dear Keith
> 
> This is an interesting question.
> 
> But what we have on the table is the third draft report.
> 
> This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a 
> higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the 
> consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some 
> gnso members (who have proposed this)
> 
> best
> 
> Jorge
> 
> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
> 
> Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>:
> 
> We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent.  Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object?
> 
> Regards,
> Keith
> 
> 
> 
> From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA at minetur.es]
> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM
> To: James M. Bladel; 
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>; 
> Drazek, Keith
> Cc: thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>; 
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c
> ommunity at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 
> and 11 issues
> 
> It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either.
> 
> Best
> Rafael
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: "James M. Bladel"
> Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00)
> To: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>, 
> kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>
> Cc: thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>, 
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c
> ommunity at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 
> and 11 issues
> 
> Hello Jorge -
> 
> Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC?
> 
> Thanks-
> 
> J.
> 
> 
> On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org%20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>"
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%0bJorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
> 
>> A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a 
>> discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and 
>> little of a serious compromise
>> 
>> best
>> 
>> Jorge
>> 
>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>> 
>> Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith
>> <kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com%3cmailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>>:
>> 
>> The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives 
>> the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold 
>> to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates 
>> appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way 
>> forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. 
>> Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Keith
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji 
>> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Paul,
>> 
>> You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). 
>> While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting 
>> right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
>> 
>> I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the 
>> community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and 
>> that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same 
>> level with other part of the community as much as possible.
>> 
>> As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some 
>> extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain 
>> situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not 
>> give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making 
>> power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
>> 
>> I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto 
>> GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of 
>> the
>> following:
>> 
>> 1. Rejected by board
>> 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by 
>> an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission.
>> 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of 
>> ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the  outcome 
>> of an IRP)
>> 
>> I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground 
>> and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not 
>> see
>> it)
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig"
>> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbr
>> an
>> chc
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchc%0b>>onsulting.com<http://onsulting.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<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbra
>> nc 
>> hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rose
>> nz
>> weig at redbranchco>
>> nsulting.com<http://nsulting.com>>
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>
>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
>> Link to my PGP Key
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Burr, Becky
>> [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:B
>> ec ky.Burr at neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>]
>> Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM
>> To: Olga Cavalli
>> <olgacavalli at gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli at gmail.com<mailto:olgacavall
>> i@ gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli at gmail.com>>>;
>> Schaefer, Brett
>> <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto:
>> Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>>>
>> Cc: 
>> <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.n
>> et
>> %3cmailto:thomas at rickert.net>>>
>> <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.n
>> et
>> %3cmailto:thomas at rickert.net>>>;
>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross
>> -c
>> omm
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili
> ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity at icann.org<mailto:unity at icann.org>>>
>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross
>> -c
>> omm
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili
> ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity at icann.org<mailto:unity 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<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932>  Mobile:
>> +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / 
>> +neustar.biz<http://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<mailto:olgacavalli at gmail.com%3cmailto: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<mai
>>>> lt 
>>>> o:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org%3cmailto: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:
>>>> ka 
>>>> vouss.arasteh at gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>><mailto
>>>> :k
>>>> avo
> <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh at gmail.com%3cmailto: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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:
> <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.a
> dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom
> .admin.ch>>>>
>>>> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:
> <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto: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:accountabil
>>>> it
>>>> y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:
>>>> accountability-c> 
>>>> ross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a
>>>> cc 
>>>> oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil
>>>> it
>>>> y-cr%3cmailto:accoun>
>>>> tability-cr>
>>>> oss-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.
>>>> or 
>>>> g<mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou
>>>> nc
>>>> es at icann.org>>>
>>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:acc
>>>> ou
>>>> nta
>>>> bility-cross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro
>>>> ss 
>>>> -community-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr
>>>> os s-community-bounces at icann.org%3e>] 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:greg
>>>> sh 
>>>> atanipc at gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>><mailto:gregsha
>>>> t
> <mailto:gregshat%0b>>>>anipc at gmail.com<mailto:anipc at gmail.com><mailto:
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>; Mueller,
>>>> Milton L
>>>> <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.ed
>>>> u% 3cmailto:milton at gatech.edu>><mailto:milton at gatech.edu<ma
> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton at gatech.edu<http://gat
> ech.edu>>>>
>>>> Cc:
>>>> accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros
>>>> s- 
>>>> com<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org%3cmailto:accoun
>>>> ta
>>>> bility-cross-com> 
>>>> munity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab
>>>> il 
>>>> ity<mailto:munity at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3
>>>> cm
>>>> ailto:accountability>
>>>> -cross-comm>
>>>> unity at icann.org<mailto: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
>>>> 
>>>> http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http
>>>> -3 
>>>> A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u
>>>> =h
>>>> ttp-3A__>
>>>> heritage
>> http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq
>> 8M 
>> o8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm
>> 6X
>> _GRlaq8Mo8T>
>> jDmrxdYa
>>>> hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolh
>>>> J2
>>>> mGN
>>>> u
>>>> 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= >
>>>> Von: Kavouss Arasteh
>>>> [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<
>>>> ma 
>>>> ilto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com%3cmailto: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:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:
> <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.a
> dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom
> .admin.ch>>>>
>>>> Cc:
>>>> <jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk%3cmailto:
>>>> jukacz at erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:juka
> <mailto:jukacz at erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz at erst.dk<mailto:cz at erst.d
> k>>>>
>>>> <jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk%3cmailto:
>>>> jukacz at erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:juka
> <mailto:jukacz at erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz at erst.dk<mailto:cz at erst.d
> k>>>>;
>>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
>>>> ss
>>>> -co
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili
> ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
> ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili
> ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability>
>>>> -cross-com>
>>>> munity at icann.org<mailto:munity at icann.org><mailto:munity at icann.org>>
>>>> > 
>>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
>>>> ss
>>>> -co
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili
> ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
> ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili
> ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability>
>>>> -cross-com>
>>>> munity at icann.org<mailto:munity at icann.org><mailto:munity at icann.org>>
>>>> >;
>>>> Becky Burr
>>>> <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.
>>>> Bu 
>>>> rr at neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>><mailto:Becky.Burr
> <mailto:Becky.Burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:Becky
> .Burr at neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert
>>>> <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert
>>>> .n et%3cmailto:thomas at rickert.net>><mailto:thomas at rickert.net
> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>>; 
> Mathieu Weill
>>>> <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.
>>>> Weill at afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We
> <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill at afnic.fr<mailto:ill at afnic.fr><mailto:Math
> ieu.Weill at afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe
>>>> Sánchez Ambía
>>>> <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli
>>>> pe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe at s
> <mailto:leonfelipe at s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli
> pe at sanchez.mx>>>;
>>>> Schneider Thomas BAKOM
>>>> <Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.
>>>> ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider
>>>> @b
>>>> akom.admin.ch>>
>>>> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bak
>>>> om
>>>> .ad
> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider at bako
> m.ad%0b>>>>min.ch<http://min.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:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:
> <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.a
> dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom
> .admin.ch>>>>
>>>> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:
> <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto: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<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<
>>>> ma 
>>>> ilto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com%3cmailto: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:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:
> <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.a
> dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom
> .admin.ch>>>>
>>>> Cc:
>>>> <jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk%3cmailto:
>>>> jukacz at erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:juka
> <mailto:jukacz at erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz at erst.dk<mailto:cz at erst.d
> k>>>>
>>>> <jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk%3cmailto:
>>>> jukacz at erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:juka
> <mailto:jukacz at erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz at erst.dk<mailto:cz at erst.d
> k>>>>;
>>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
>>>> ss
>>>> -co
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili
> ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
> ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili
> ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability>
>>>> -cross-com>
>>>> munity at icann.org<mailto:munity at icann.org><mailto:munity at icann.org>>
>>>> > 
>>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
>>>> ss
>>>> -co
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili
> ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
> ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili
> ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability>
>>>> -cross-com>
>>>> munity at icann.org<mailto: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:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:
> <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.a
> dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom
> .admin.ch>>>>
>>>> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:
> <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto: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:accountabil
>>>> it
>>>> y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:
>>>> accountability-c> 
>>>> ross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a
>>>> cc 
>>>> oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil
>>>> it
>>>> y-cr%3cmailto:accoun>
>>>> tability-cr>
>>>> oss-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.
>>>> or 
>>>> g<mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou
>>>> nc
>>>> es at icann.org>>>
>>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:acc
>>>> ou
>>>> nta
>>>> bility-cross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro
>>>> ss 
>>>> -community-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr
>>>> os s-community-bounces at icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja 
>>>> Wolman
>>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34
>>>> An: 'CCWG Accountability'
>>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
>>>> ss
>>>> -co
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili
> ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
> ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili
> ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability>
>>>> -cross-com>
>>>> munity at icann.org<mailto: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><mailto
>>>> :j
>>>> ukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukac
>>>> z at erst.dk<mailto:z at erst.dk>>>
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v
>>>> 2/ 
>>>> url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.
>>>> co
>>>> m/v2/url>
>>>> ?u=http-
>>>> 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d
>>>> =C wIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif
>>>> zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioS
>>>> UB
>>>> 1PW
>>>> w
>>>> 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:accountabil
>>>> it
>>>> y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:
>>>> accountability-c> 
>>>> ross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a
>>>> cc 
>>>> oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil
>>>> it
>>>> y-cr%3cmailto:accoun>
>>>> tability-cr>
>>>> oss-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.
>>>> or 
>>>> g<mailto:oss-community-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou
>>>> nc
>>>> es at icann.org>>>
>>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:acc
>>>> ou
>>>> nta
>>>> bility-cross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro
>>>> ss 
>>>> -community-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr
>>>> os s-community-bounces at icann.org%3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky
>>>> Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19
>>>> Til: Kavouss Arasteh;
>>>> accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros
>>>> s- 
>>>> com<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org%3cmailto:accoun
>>>> ta
>>>> bility-cross-com> 
>>>> munity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab
>>>> il 
>>>> ity<mailto:munity at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3
>>>> cm
>>>> ailto:accountability>
>>>> -cross-comm>
>>>> unity at icann.org<mailto: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://neustar.biz><http://www.neus
>>>> ta r.biz<http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz>>
>>>> 
>>>> From: Kavouss Arasteh
>>>> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:
>>>> ka 
>>>> vouss.arasteh at gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>><mailto
>>>> :k
>>>> avo
> <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.
> com<mailto:uss.arasteh at gmail.com%3cmailto: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-cro
>>>> ss
>>>> -co
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili
> ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m
> ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili
> ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability>
>>>> -cross-com>
>>>> munity at icann.org<mailto:munity at icann.org><mailto:munity at icann.org>>
>>>> >,
>>>> Becky Burr
>>>> <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.
>>>> bu 
>>>> rr at neustar.biz%3cmailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>><mailto:becky.burr
> <mailto:becky.burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:becky
> .burr at neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill
>>>> <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.
>>>> Weill at afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We
> <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill at afnic.fr<mailto:ill at afnic.fr><mailto:Math
> ieu.Weill at afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert
>>>> <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert
>>>> .n et%3cmailto:thomas at rickert.net>><mailto:thomas at rickert.net
> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>>, León 
> Felipe Sánchez
>>>> Ambía
>>>> <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli
>>>> pe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe at s
> <mailto:leonfelipe at s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli
> pe 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-Cros
>>>> s- 
>>>> Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun
>>>> ta
>>>> bility-Cross-Com> 
>>>> munity at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab
>>>> il 
>>>> ity<mailto:munity at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3
>>>> cm
>>>> ailto:Accountability>
>>>> -Cross-Comm>
>>>> unity at icann.org<mailto:unity at icann.org><mailto:unity at icann.org>>
>>>> 
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m
>>>> ai
>>>> lma
>>>> n
>>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET
>>>> eD
>>>> ALC
>>>> _
>>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2
>>>> Ho
>>>> zbe
>>>> O
>>>> ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w
>>>> C7
>>>> M&e
>>>> =
>>>> 
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_
>>>> ma
>>>> ilm
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai
> lm%0b>>>>a
>>>> n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIE
>>>> Te
>>>> DAL
>>>> C
>>>> _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-
>>>> 2H
>>>> ozb
>>>> e
>>>> OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-
>>>> wC
>>>> 7M&
>>>> e
>>>> = >
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> 
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros
>>>> s- 
>>>> Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun
>>>> ta
>>>> bility-Cross-Com> 
>>>> munity at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab
>>>> il 
>>>> ity<mailto:munity at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3
>>>> cm
>>>> ailto:Accountability>
>>>> -Cross-Comm>
>>>> unity at icann.org<mailto:unity at icann.org><mailto:unity at icann.org>>
>>>> 
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m
>>>> ai
>>>> lma
>>>> n
>>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET
>>>> eD
>>>> ALC
>>>> _
>>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2
>>>> Ho
>>>> zbe
>>>> O
>>>> ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w
>>>> C7
>>>> M&e
>>>> =
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> 
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros
>>>> s- 
>>>> Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun
>>>> ta
>>>> bility-Cross-Com> munity at icann.org<mailto:munity at icann.org>>
>>>> 
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m
>>>> ai
>>>> lma
>>>> n
>>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET
>>>> eD
>>>> ALC
>>>> _
>>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2
>>>> Ho
>>>> zbe
>>>> O
>>>> ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w
>>>> C7
>>>> M&e
>>>> =
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross
>>> -C 
>>> omm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org%3cmailto:Account
>>> ab
>>> ility-Cross-Comm> unity at icann.org<mailto:unity at icann.org>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma
>>> il
>>> man
>>> _
>>> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD
>>> AL
>>> C_l
>>> U
>>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hoz
>>> be
>>> OZX
>>> Y
>>> oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&
>>> e=
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
>> Co 
>> mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta
>> bi
>> lity-Cross-Commu>
>> nity at icann.org<mailto:nity at icann.org>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
>> Co 
>> mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta
>> bi
>> lity-Cross-Commu>
>> nity at icann.org<mailto:nity at icann.org>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
>> Co 
>> mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta
>> bi
>> lity-Cross-Commu>
>> nity at icann.org<mailto:nity at icann.org>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
>> Co 
>> mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta
>> bi
>> lity-Cross-Commu>
>> nity at icann.org<mailto:nity at icann.org>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
>> Co
>> mmunity at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C
> ommunity at icann.org> 
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO Council Response to CCWG-Accountability - FINAL - 22 January 2016.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 524491 bytes
Desc: GNSO Council Response to CCWG-Accountability - FINAL - 22 January 2016.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160205/3fc2e5ff/GNSOCouncilResponsetoCCWG-Accountability-FINAL-22January2016-0001.pdf>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list