[CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue

Fri Feb 19 18:39:24 UTC 2016

Dear Alan,
Steve is not only a highly expert in technical matter and management but is
also a diplomat.
Please kindly read ihis comments without any attempt to decomposite it.
I do not believe Steve make such decomposite action
Regards
Kavouss

2016-02-19 19:32 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>:

> In that case we miss all our timelines and might as well just throw
> everything that we have worked for out the window. This is a tactic, and
> one which we must reject and move forward as planned.
>
> -jg
>
> From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> Date: Friday 19 February 2016 at 6:30 p.m.
> To: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> Cc: Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>, Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>, "
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
>
> Dear All,
> Have we ever received a consensus objection or some form of wholesome
> proposal reflecting the full breath of membership of the  other
> constituencies  I think we need to  reflect and forward correctly .
> Who knows till end of ICANN 55 howmany objections will be tableed?
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
>
> 2016-02-19 19:23 GMT+01:00 Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>:
>
>> I feel like I’m in the movie Ground Hog Day and every day is a 1 am ICANN
>> call.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
>> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss
>> Arasteh
>> *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 1:17 PM
>> *To:* Phil Corwin
>> *Cc:* Thomas Rickert; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> There is big difference between providing the rights for GAC as
>> decisional making entity and to exercise those rights
>>
>> GAC has not decided on whether they wish to exercise that right or not,
>>
>> Supermajority and reconsideration of rejected Recommendation of other
>> constituencies and rejection of GAC Advice should have the same threshold
>>
>> If ONE GETS THE BENEF OF 2/3 MAJORITY the other should ALSO have the
>> same. BENEFIT
>>
>> If GAC advice could be rejected by the Board with simple Majority the
>> Recommendation of other entities SHOULD also be rejected by simple majority.
>>
>> If the Board gets into negotiation with GAC after it has rejected its
>> advice, they also get into negotiation with other constituencies if their
>> Recommendations were rejected .
>>
>> Currently there is a full imbalance between the PDP Recommendations
>> treatments and GAC advice
>>
>> The PDP Recommendations developed by supermajority in some constituencies
>> or by so-called SOFT CONSENSUS could only be rejected by the Board with 2/3
>> MAJORITY BUT GAC advice ,normally decided by consensus could only be
>> rejected by SIMPLE MAJORITY
>>
>> This is unfair.
>>
>> However, after rejection with such an imbalance criteria both cases could
>> be negotiated by Board and the two constituencies.
>>
>> I do not agree with the argument submitted with the risk that those
>> people  submitting such argument   may disserve the ethic of correspondence
>> and going out of the limit and not observing mutual respect
>>
>> Kavouss
>>
>>
>>
>> 2016-02-19 18:51 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>:
>>
>> Greg:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best. Philip
>>
>>
>>
>> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
>>
>> *Virtualaw LLC*
>>
>> *1155 F Street, NW*
>>
>> *Suite 1050*
>>
>> *Washington, DC 20004*
>>
>> *202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
>>
>> *202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
>>
>> *202-255-6172 <202-255-6172>/cell*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>>
>>
>>
>> *"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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <
>> 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 <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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> BrettSchaefer
>> 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
>> heritage.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160219/81198e9d/attachment-0001.html>