[CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Fri Feb 19 18:44:49 UTC 2016
Dear Nigle
Thank you very much for your wisdonm
We are in the midddle of nowhere
Kavouss
2016-02-19 19:39 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>:
> James
>
> This worries me. The CCWG proposals will change the relationships in
> ICANN, and will affect ccTLDs as well as the other stakeholders. The sands
> are shifting, yet, just like the GAC many ccTLD managers have not had the
> opportunity to fully consider the final draft.
>
> I admit I remain skeptical that it is in the long-term interests of ICANN
> that the organisations seems so closely tied to partisan United States
> political interests, and ccTLD managers, PARTICULARLY those who are not
> members of the ccNSO (there are about 100 of these) must be given an
> opportunity to consider the proposal once it is final.
>
> "Move forward as planned" you say. But planned by whom? That formulation
> seems less like bottom-up decision making that top-down.
>
> We should simply take a deep breath, and stop warning each other, or
> getting angry, and take stock.
>
> So, where ARE we exactly?
>
>
> On 19/02/16 18:32, James Gannon wrote:
>
>> 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
>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
>> Date: Friday 19 February 2016 at 6:30 p.m.
>> To: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net
>> >>
>> Cc: Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>, Thomas
>> Rickert <thomas at rickert.net <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>,
>> "accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>"
>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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>
>> [mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <tel:202-559-8597>/Direct*____
>>
>> *202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750>/Fax*____
>>
>> *202-255-6172 <tel: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>
>> [mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:202-608-6097>
>> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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____
>>
>> ____
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 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____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160219/4383d193/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list