[CCWG-ACCT] recap and next steps?

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sun Feb 21 12:36:18 UTC 2016

Dear Jordan,
I also think that is a good summary for threshold issue .
You have kindly took one of the options that I did suggest this morning to
Co-Chairs to explore
There are some other issues that may be settled if we settle the threshold
Having said that in regard with the two alternatives for selecting one of
the two options that you have highlighted in your message the following
*"other participants think it's broader than that and applies whenever the
cause is related to Board responses to GAC advice"*
This option further marginalized the GAC position and create further
objections on the matter.On the contrary the first option
"some participants think it's only if an IRP holds that the Board has
breached the mission / bylaws"
The latter option . indicated in Blue colour may clam down the situation to
some extent and could , just could avoid further objections from other
Governments yet to be decided on the matter .
Theser are just foods for thought.
I am not addressing any other issues raised in this regards
As Jordan
This is a thought , you may take it or reject it with kind reply.
Please let us have a healthy discussion, and maintain a friendly enviroments
The  discussion of the issue is Evolved .No need to say who did what .
That does not help at all
Let us discuss where we are now and what is the next step.
Thank you again Jordan for your very friendly message and nice tone

2016-02-21 12:59 GMT+01:00 Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>:

> Jordan,
> This is a good summary.
> I am offended at how the Board has abused its power in this process by
> violating process, procedure and timelines to push its agenda.
> I would ask one additional question. Our entire proposal is focused on how
> to make ICANN accountable to the community, so what conclusions can be
> drawn from the fact that we can't even hold the Board to the same rules
> that we have established for ourselves in this process?
> Best,
> Brett
> ________________________________
> Brett Schaefer
> 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
> heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>
> On Feb 20, 2016, at 10:28 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:
> Hi all
> I'm trying for a recap / reset in this message, not sure I succeed but
> trying to help the discussion along.
> Here's the background that has caused the current extension of debate, as
> I understand it:
> - CCWG incorporated the idea that a decisional participant with a special
> role (GAC's advisory role that requires due deference by the Board, unique
> among ACs) should not be a decision-maker in applying accountability powers
> in relation to the consequences of that role. (In other words, GAC can
> choose - either consensus advice, or the ability to decide on
> accountability powers re its views - but not both).
> - if GAC is excluded from decisions, there would likely be four other SOs
> and ACs participating.
> - CCWG developed a principle that the use of community powers should not
> require unanimity for their use, so a proposal was made that the threshold
> for the Board Removal power should lower to 3 in such a situation.
> - the debate since has been about when that lower threshold of 3 SOs/ACs
> should apply.
>   - some participants think it's only if an IRP holds that the Board has
> breached the mission / bylaws
>   - other participants think it's broader than that and applies whenever
> the cause is related to Board responses to GAC advice
> - the Board has repeatedly said that it does not want the "no unanimity"
> principle to apply, but is willing to accept the lower threshold where an
> IRP finds against it.
> -  there seems to be disagreement about what the CCWG actually decided in
> this, which is driving the discussion.
> So here is what I think are some basics that we have to do:
> - we have to reach clarity about what precisely we have decided, and if
> there were any gaps in that, they need to be specified.
> - we have to decide what to do if that clarity exposes alternatives that
> haven't been decided between - that may include a position that the Board
> isn't happy with.
> - we have to choose alternative that can drive the widest possible
> consensus within the group (unlike Steve Crocker's email, I don't think
> that a decision on this can be pushed to implementation)
> - we have to publish the report
> I'm not a spokesperson for the leadership team but I can say that I'll be
> doing what I can with the co-chairs and other rapporteurs to help make sure
> that the options are as clear as they can be for our meeting on Tuesday --
> so that the chances of confusion are as low as possible.
> I've said before that I don't mind where the group finalises on this
> issue.  Here's why
> I do not think it's likely that the community is going to use the new
> accountability powers to disagree with Board implementation of matters that
> include GAC advice in the future.  There are a number of reasons why I hold
> that view, two key ones being:
> - the improving transparency of GAC advice and particularly the GNSO/GAC
> engagement and the Board/GAC engagement
> - the existence of the new accountability framework, which makes it less
> likely the Board will go against strong community sentiment
> If I thought this was an important issue which would have a significant
> impact on our package, and that it was a life or death matter to resolve
> one way or the other, I would be very offended by the way this has played
> out in the past few days.  But because the stakes are so low on the
> substance, I am *very* happy to fall into consensus with whatever direction
> the group wants to go, and I *do not* see this as an issue where *anyone*
> should be adopting non-negotiable positions.
> I don't expect that everyone will agree with me that this simply isn't
> that important an issue, but I really hope that as a CCWG, we can put this
> matter into perspective.  The CCWG has to come to a conclusion on that, and
> get the report out.
> SO -- hopefully on Tuesday we can work through the options in front of us
> and come to a decision about what to do.
> If any party gets to the point on this issue that they feel like dying in
> the ditch is worth it, well may I humbly suggest that you find yourself a
> ditch? :-)
> best
> Jordan
> --
> Jordan Carter
> Chief Executive
> InternetNZ - your voice for the Open Internet
> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> Skype: jordancarter
> Web: www.internetnz.nz<http://www.internetnz.nz>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160221/2848a480/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list