[CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue

[Alan Greenberg]

Thank you Sam.

At 19/02/2016 02:05 PM, Samantha Eisner wrote:
>Hi Alan,
>
>I write as staff liaison to the CCWG, based on my understanding of 
>the Board's position.  Thank you for the request for 
>clarification.  The Board still supports the compromise that it 
>presented earlier to the CCWG, and so your point 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"). is the correct understanding of Steve's note.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Sam
>
>From: 
><<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> 
>on behalf of Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 10:30 AM
>To: Greg Shatan 
><<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, Kavouss 
>Arasteh <<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>Cc: Thomas Rickert <<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>thomas at rickert.net>, 
>"<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>accountability-cross-community at icann.org" 
><<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
>
>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
>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>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/df763449/attachment-0001.html>