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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Fri Feb 5 19:54:45 UTC 2016


Jorge,

Rec. 1 had "limited support and some opposition" in the GNSO feedback
document.  Rec. 2 had "general support", but it is the interplay between 1,
2 and 11 that is at issue, not merely a position on any one Rec.

Greg

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 2:15 PM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

> 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-community 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-community 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 redbran
> >> 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 redbranc
> >> hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rosenz
> >> 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:Bec
> >> 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:olgacavalli@
> >> 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.net
> >> %3cmailto:thomas at rickert.net>>>
> >> <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net
> >> %3cmailto:thomas at rickert.net>>>;
> >> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c
> >> omm
> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> %3cmailto:accountability-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:accountability-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<mailt
> >>>> 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.admin.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:accountabilit
> >>>> y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:
> >>>> accountability-c>
> >>>> ross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:acc
> >>>> oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabilit
> >>>> 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-bounc
> >>>> es at icann.org>>>
> >>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accou
> >>>> nta
> >>>> bility-cross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross
> >>>> -community-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cros
> >>>> 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:gregsh
> >>>> atanipc at gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>><mailto:gregshat
> > <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.edu%
> >>>> 3cmailto:milton at gatech.edu>><mailto:milton at gatech.edu<ma
> > <mailto:milton at gatech.edu%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton at gatech.edu<
> http://gatech.edu>>>>
> >>>> Cc:
> >>>> accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-
> >>>> com<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org%3cmailto:accounta
> >>>> bility-cross-com>
> >>>> munity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountabil
> >>>> ity<mailto:munity at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3cm
> >>>> 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_GRlaq8M
> >> o8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X
> >> _GRlaq8Mo8T>
> >> jDmrxdYa
> >>>> hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2
> >>>> 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.admin.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.dk
> >>>>
> >>>> <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.dk
> >>>>;
> >>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross
> >>>> -co
> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> %3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity at icann.org><mailto:
> accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity at icann.org
> %3e%3cmailto:accountability-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-cross
> >>>> -co
> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> %3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity at icann.org><mailto:
> accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity at icann.org
> %3e%3cmailto:accountability-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:
> Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe
> >>>> Sánchez Ambía
> >>>> <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe
> >>>> @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe at s
> > <mailto:leonfelipe at s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:
> leonfelipe 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 at b
> >>>> akom.admin.ch>>
> >>>> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom
> >>>> .ad
> > <mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch%
> 3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.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.admin.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.admin.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.dk
> >>>>
> >>>> <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.dk
> >>>>;
> >>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross
> >>>> -co
> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> %3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity at icann.org><mailto:
> accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity at icann.org
> %3e%3cmailto:accountability-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-cross
> >>>> -co
> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> %3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity at icann.org><mailto:
> accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity at icann.org
> %3e%3cmailto:accountability-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.admin.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:accountabilit
> >>>> y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:
> >>>> accountability-c>
> >>>> ross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:acc
> >>>> oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabilit
> >>>> 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-bounc
> >>>> es at icann.org>>>
> >>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accou
> >>>> nta
> >>>> bility-cross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross
> >>>> -community-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cros
> >>>> 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-cross
> >>>> -co
> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> %3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity at icann.org><mailto:
> accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity at icann.org
> %3e%3cmailto:accountability-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/v2/
> >>>> 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=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB
> >>>> 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:accountabilit
> >>>> y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:
> >>>> accountability-c>
> >>>> ross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:acc
> >>>> oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabilit
> >>>> 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-bounc
> >>>> es at icann.org>>>
> >>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accou
> >>>> nta
> >>>> bility-cross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross
> >>>> -community-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cros
> >>>> 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-cross-
> >>>> com<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org%3cmailto:accounta
> >>>> bility-cross-com>
> >>>> munity at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountabil
> >>>> ity<mailto:munity at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3cm
> >>>> 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.neusta
> >>>> 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-cross
> >>>> -co
> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> %3cmailto:accountability-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity at icann.org><mailto:
> accountability-cross-com<mailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity at icann.org
> %3e%3cmailto:accountability-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:
> Mathieu.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:leonfelipe
> >>>> @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe at s
> > <mailto:leonfelipe at s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.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-
> >>>> Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta
> >>>> bility-Cross-Com>
> >>>> munity at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountabil
> >>>> ity<mailto:munity at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3cm
> >>>> 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_mai
> >>>> lma
> >>>> n
> >>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD
> >>>> ALC
> >>>> _
> >>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Ho
> >>>> zbe
> >>>> O
> >>>> ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7
> >>>> 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_mailm%0b
> >>>>a
> >>>> n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETe
> >>>> 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-Cross-
> >>>> Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta
> >>>> bility-Cross-Com>
> >>>> munity at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountabil
> >>>> ity<mailto:munity at icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3cm
> >>>> 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_mai
> >>>> lma
> >>>> n
> >>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD
> >>>> ALC
> >>>> _
> >>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Ho
> >>>> zbe
> >>>> O
> >>>> ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7
> >>>> M&e
> >>>> =
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>>>
> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
> >>>> Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta
> >>>> bility-Cross-Com> munity at icann.org<mailto:munity at icann.org>>
> >>>>
> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai
> >>>> lma
> >>>> n
> >>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD
> >>>> ALC
> >>>> _
> >>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Ho
> >>>> zbe
> >>>> O
> >>>> ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7
> >>>> 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:Accountab
> >>> ility-Cross-Comm> unity at icann.org<mailto:unity at icann.org>>
> >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail
> >>> man
> >>> _
> >>> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL
> >>> C_l
> >>> U
> >>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe
> >>> 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:Accountabi
> >> 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:Accountabi
> >> 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:Accountabi
> >> 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:Accountabi
> >> 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-Community at icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160205/f93654c6/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list