[CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sat Feb 20 07:40:49 UTC 2016

Dear All,
The simplest and most straight forward was to resolve the issue;
address/ meet the Boards Concerns is that in no way and Under any
circumstances, the Spill of the Board should be decided by less than 4SO/
AC. That was the golden ruilehat everybody agreed before this so-called
CARVE_OUT being proposed generating considerable disagreements and disputes
Imagine that all we have done to bring ther Board on CCWG SIDE would be
compromised if the Bioard tables a SERIOUS CONCERNS /disagreement on
reduction on the Number os SO/AC from 4 to 3 ,no matter Under what
Retention 4 SO(AC for Spill over of the Board may decrease the concerns of
Carve-out to a greater extent

2016-02-20 5:08 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:

> Yes Thanks
> kavouss
> 2016-02-20 4:50 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:
>> The next call is on 23 February at 0600 UTC.
>> On Friday, February 19, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Dear Co-Chairs
>>> Here it is 0340UTC and I am still following all exchanged e-mails.
>>> Some of them promising and some other disappointing
>>> The Co-Chairs decision to hold on the forwarding the final report till
>>> the issue of threshold is resolved is the most WISE and the most
>>> appropriate decision.
>>> I fully support it .
>>> Good luck for CCWG call on 26 Feb.
>>> Regards
>>> Kavouss
>>> 2016-02-20 1:19 GMT+01:00 León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <
>>> leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19
>>>> February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to
>>>> do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a
>>>> full group.
>>>> There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for
>>>> Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report
>>>> after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice
>>>> (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text
>>>> that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17
>>>> February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
>>>> We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority
>>>> statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the
>>>> Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note,
>>>> apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the
>>>> latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February:
>>>> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/011056.html.
>>>> While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for
>>>> those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their
>>>> respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main
>>>> target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting
>>>> the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process.
>>>> It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published
>>>> the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a
>>>> Board disagreement later in the process.
>>>> We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report
>>>> to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the
>>>> opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next
>>>> Tuesday’s CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and
>>>> directions the group can take at this stage, each with different
>>>> implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a
>>>> group.
>>>> Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication on
>>>> our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the
>>>> Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule.
>>>> As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every
>>>> Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board,
>>>> in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to
>>>> engage constructively and recognize each other’s value to the
>>>> multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can
>>>> deliver, now is the time to act accordingly.
>>>>  Thank you,
>>>> Thomas, León, Mathieu
>>>> *CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs*
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20160220/8af849ca/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list