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

Phil Buckingham phil at dotadvice.co.uk
Sun Feb 21 13:21:56 UTC 2016

James, I  totally agree .

We have all been here before- 11 th hour negotiation tactics. There is no
more time for “ tinkering “ . The 19 February  deadline has been  and gone.
The line has to be drawn.  It is time  to ship the proposal  as is.  








From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Matthew Shears
Sent: 21 February 2016 12:42
To: James Gannon; Kavouss Arasteh; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León
Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Burr, Becky; Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch
Cc: CCWG Accountability
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs


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.




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

1.      We may go back to call 80 on Rec 11 with two options of Simple
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 



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


Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org

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 sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. 
 <https://www.avast.com/sig-email> www.avast.com 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160221/e876bdc1/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list