[CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Fri Feb 19 18:30:50 UTC 2016
I need some clarity from the Board.
I can read Steve's message in two ways.
1. They are sticking to their previous statement which I understood
to mean accepting the "carve-out", but not the reduction in the
threshhold to remove the Board. That stays at 4 (and requires
unanimity) unless there is a successful IRP).
2. They are now withdrawing their previous position and rejecting the
carve-out excluding the GAC from participating in Community Powers
exercised in response to Board action/inaction over GAC advice.
Steve?
Alan
At 19/02/2016 12:37 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>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.
>
>Greg
>
>
>
>On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh
><<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message
>Regards
>Kavouss
>
>2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh
><<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>Dear Co-chairs
>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
>Regards
>Kavouss
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>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/d95aeeab/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list