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

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Co-Chairs

The number Governments expressing /manifesting serious concerns on the
three Recommendations, 1, 2 and mainly 11 is growing. Now 12 countries have
formally manifest their objections

These concerns are focused on the manner the CCWG attempting to treat
GAC in an imbalance manner with respect to other ICANN Constituencies .The
CCWG Co- Chairs are urged to explore all ways and means to  adequately
respond to these   growing serious concerns taking into account the long
standing principle of universality ,fairness and equal treatments of all
Multistakeholders communities in an inclusive, transparent and democratic
manner

We are members of one family , ICANN Family , and thus deserve to be  properly,
equally and fairly treated

There are still opportunity /opportunities to remedy the cause of these
concerns

   1.

   We may go back to call 80 on Rec 11 with two options of Simple Majority
   and 2/3 FOR THE REJECTION OF GAC ADVICE BY THE BOARD and try to further
   discus that in removing the famous so-called Carve-Out which is the  main
   cause of some ,if not all ,of these concerns  .
   2.

   Two  address the threshold of 4 SO/AC required to recall the entire
   Board in all cases or at least for cases in which IRP is not available
   3.

   Apply the Carve-out all SOs/ACs or to all ACs Treat and still discuss
   the threshold of 4 SOs / ACs for the removal of the entire Board
   4.

   *Should you not succeed to find compromise then submit multiple options
   to NTIA? *

Irrespective of that amend Annexes 1 and 2 in regard with the adjustments
of the threshold if the No. of SOS &ACs changed in either direction and
exempt the Board Recall for that threshold
Kavouss

2016-02-21 9:01 GMT+01:00 <epilisse at gmail.com>:

> I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would
> then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting.
>
> In any case let me place the current state on the record:
>
> Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or
> (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly.
>
> But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it
> doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather)
> and be done with it.
>
> These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced
> professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a
> living.
>
> Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and
> very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what
> we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot
> down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating
> object and add minority statement.
>
> In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to
> anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority
> Statement and we need a new time line.
>
> Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but
> that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the
> Chartering Organizations sort out this mess.
>
>
> el
>
> --
> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini
>
> On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>, wrote:
>
> +2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be
> extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather
> than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are
> free to return to our former positions.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160221/ee2c3848/attachment.html>