[CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Fri Feb 19 18:16:04 UTC 2016

Paul, I am a participant on the list.I am also a part of the GNSO, as a member of the BC.
I am not sure that there is a single GNSO view.
Each Constituency will have to discuss and determine.
I am studying all options.  And I am not laying down any marker.After all, if I had, or anyone else had, back in 1998, ICANN would not even exist.
We have done pretty well by not laying down markers but just stumbling in the right direction.
Let's keep up that effort. 
I know all of you who have done so much work are tired and worn out.BUT, there is so much progress. It is amazing. Let's not lose our willingness to keep up the right direction at this point.
> From: paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> To: steve.crocker at icann.org; Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr; leonfelipe at sanchez.mx; thomas at rickert.net
> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 12:41:05 -0500
> CC: icann-board at icann.org; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out
> Just to lay down a marker, so that silence is not taken as assent, this
> proposal from the Board is completely unacceptable to me and I suspect to
> most if not all of the gNSO.
> Right now I am so angry at the Board's last minute interference that if I
> say anything further it will be far too intemperate. 
> Paul
> Paul Rosenzweig
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> Link to my PGP Key
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve.crocker at icann.org] 
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 11:28 AM
> To: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
> <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>; Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>
> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker at icann.org>; Icann-board ICANN
> <icann-board at icann.org>; Accountability Community
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out
> CCWG Colleagues,
> The Board has a serious and continued concern about the issues being raised
> that may result in the reduction of the GAC’s ability to participate in
> community decision making. This is most noticeable in the question of
> thresholds for board removal, however this is not an issue about removal or
> even thresholds, it is one part of the community being (or perceiving that
> it is being) sidelined. The Board’s concerns with this issue are not about
> Board removal, but about maintaining the balanced multistakeholder model.  
> The Board is against any changes to the long established equilibrium and
> fairness among the different stakeholders within ICANN. The Board has long
> supported a threshold of four participants for Board removal in the ultimate
> escalation method proposed by the CCWG.  Selecting one portion of the ICANN
> community and removing them from the equation - just through the ability to
> say that the community is unhappy with the acceptance of GAC advice that is
> within ICANN’s bylaws - raises significant concerns about how the
> multistakeholder model, and the ultimate stability of ICANN as an
> organization, can be maintained. This carved out exception undercuts the
> established role of governments within the multi stakeholder process, and
> could introduce new issues with the acceptance of ICANN’s model undermining
> the work of the CCWG.  
> We understand that there are concerns with this path from within other parts
> of ICANN community, including members of the GAC and ALAC. The best course,
> in our opinion, would be a careful and objective discussion of the whole
> matter of how advice from ALL parties is appropriately considered within
> ICANN.  If there is a graceful way to remove this matter from the immediate
> pressure of the deadline of submitting this proposal and make it a priority
> matter for either the implementation phase or Work Stream 2, we think there
> will be a solution which is genuinely good for everyone.
> We encourage you to share the CCWG’s proposal with the Chartering
> Organizations while the dialog on this outstanding point continues.
> Thank you,
> Steve Crocker
> Chair, ICANN Board of Directors
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160219/ef6f547f/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list