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

Matthew Shears mshears at cdt.org
Sun Feb 21 12:42:04 UTC 2016

Agree James.

On 2/21/2016 10:11 AM, James Gannon wrote:
> 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 analysis.
> 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.
> -jg
> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf 
> of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com 
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
> Date: Sunday 21 February 2016 at 10:05 a.m.
> To: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr 
> <mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net 
> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía 
> <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>, "Burr, Becky" 
> <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>, 
> "Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch 
> <mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>" 
> <Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>>
> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org 
> <mailto: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 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
>     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 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>     <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


Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987

CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160221/82de19f9/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list