[CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue

Phil Corwin psc at vlaw-dc.com
Fri Feb 19 22:59:20 UTC 2016


Q.	"So, where ARE we exactly?"

A. 	We are hours away from the supposed deadline for delivery of the Final Recommendations to the Chartering Organizations, a 	deadline dictated by timeline considerations involving approval of the final Transition and Accountability plans by NTIA and, at a minimum, non-interference by the US Congress .

We have a saying in Washington: The train is leaving the station,. You're either on it or under it.

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC
 
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey


-----Original Message-----
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 1:39 PM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue

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


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list