[CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sun Feb 21 11:19:59 UTC 2016
You are right to say that we mnned to move forward
The course of actions was just for co-Chairs to find ways and means to
respond to the Concerns AND NOTHING ELSE.
I th don not therefore expect criticism or uinfriendly statement rather
thabn be just prepare to explore those wasy and means.
People may agree or disagree. that is all.
By the way the situation is eveolving from the last call and we need to
be mindful of what is happening.
NO ANGRY, NO CRITICISM AND NO ATTACK bjut just reflection.
Thank you Jame for your very friendly reply that I expect may be followed
2016-02-21 11:11 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>:
> My views on the fact that we need to move forward are on the record so I
> am not going to go back and re-debate that but I do feel the need to point
> out that sending multiple options to NTIA is not an option and I believe
> (Others with encyclopaedic memories will likely point to the source) that
> NTIA have publicly stated they expect a single solution to come to them for
> I feel that if we don’t move forward on this soon we will lose much of the
> credibility that we have build over the last 18 months in CWG and CCWG, we
> are constructing our own potential failure here, let us not do that and
> move forward with the carefully constructed proposal that we have built, a
> proposal that no-one is happy with, which should be a sign to all parties
> that this is a hard won compromise that balances on a needle in terms of
> acceptability to all involved.
> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> Date: Sunday 21 February 2016 at 10:05 a.m.
> To: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert <
> thomas at rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>,
> "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>, "Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch"
> <Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>
> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
> 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
> 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
> 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 .
> 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
> 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
> *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
> 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
>> 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.
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community