[CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
psc at vlaw-dc.com
Fri Feb 19 17:51:53 UTC 2016
Assuming that the new Board position is indeed a response to a minority position of a few GAC members, I am in full agreement that it “should serve as a warning to us all”.
Indeed, it emphasizes exactly why the GAC should not be able to block the community’s ability to hold the Board accountable for implementing GAC consensus advice that the community feels is outside the scope of the Bylaws or Mission Statement.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
1155 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM
To: Kavouss Arasteh
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org; Thomas Rickert
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
It is alarming that a few GAC members could seek to undo a carefully balanced compromise. And even more alarming that those few GAC members could so quickly trigger a Board intervention.
The carve-out is balanced against the concerns of other stakeholders with regard to (i) the proposed supermajority threshold for Board rejection of GAC advice and (ii) the GAC's overall role as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community, rather than its traditional advisory capacity. The carve-out itself underwent a compromise, requiring the Community to go through an IRP before exercising the power of Board recall.
When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well.
Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out?
I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message
2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>:
You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon.
This is an ALARMING SITUATION ,
If there is no consensus means there is no consensus ,
We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one.
Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such
If a mistake has occurred we should repair it .
Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator .
THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL
Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls
Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that.
You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community