[CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9, 10, 11

Mon Jan 25 15:44:00 UTC 2016

Dear Avri.

I disagree with you that the term " with due respect " is an insult.
Hundreds of time all top level people used that to say, while I fully
respect you, nevertheless, I do not agree with you on this particular topic.

This is a diplomatic language to avoid misinterpretation of grieving
somebody

I do not know what is the basis of your interpretation

Regards

Kavouss

2016-01-25 16:34 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:

> Dear Paul
> Then that allegation against ICANN , decision should go trough all steps
> of process.
> I do not believe that an individual should simply make an allegation to
> the Board, s decision without passing through an established procedure
> otherwise tens of allegations called for every day .that was not the
> objectives of IRP.Such inefficient course of action would totally
> counterproductive and detriment to the healthy process of ICANN works
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 25 Jan 2016, at 16:22, Paul Rosenzweig <
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Kavous
> >
> >
> > If and only if the person materially being affected by the Board decision
> > makes a colorable allegation that the Board's actions are inconsistent
> with
> > the bylaws ....  Whether or not they are actually inconsistent is for the
> > IRP to decide, in the end ...
> >
> > Cheers
> > Paul
> >
> > Paul Rosenzweig
> > paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> > O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> > M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> > Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> > Link to my PGP Key
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 9:55 AM
> > To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
> > Cc: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net>; Greg Shatan <
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>;
> > ICANN <ICANN at adlercolvin.com>; Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>;
> > <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> > <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>; <acct-staff at icann.org>
> > <acct-staff at icann.org>; Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>;
> > Greeley, Amy E. <AGreeley at sidley.com>; Grapsas, Rebecca
> > <rebecca.grapsas at sidley.com>
> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9,
> 10, 11
> >
> > Dear Sir,
> > Yes , if and only if the Board,s decision is INCONSISTENT with  or  in
> > violation of Bylaws?!!!!
> > Regards
> > Kavouss
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >>> On 25 Jan 2016, at 15:48, Paul Rosenzweig
> >> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Kavouss
> >>
> >> No IRP will review GAC advice.  But the community did agree
> >> (overwhelmingly) that IRP review would apply to Board decisions in
> >> response to GAC advice, which is, of course, exactly what Malcolm posits
> > ...
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> Paul Rosenzweig
> >> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> >> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> >> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> >> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> >> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> >> Link to my PGP Key
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 9:45 AM
> >> To: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net>
> >> Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; Paul Rosenzweig
> >> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>; ICANN
> >> <ICANN at adlercolvin.com>; Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>;
> >> accountability-cross-community at icann.org; acct-staff at icann.org; Sidley
> >> ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>; Greeley, Amy E.
> >> <AGreeley at sidley.com>; Grapsas, Rebecca <rebecca.grapsas at sidley.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9,
> >> 10, 11
> >>
> >> Dear All,
> >> Perhaps people totally forgotten that NO IRP SHALL BE INVOKED BY THE
> >> COMMUNITY.
> >> FOR GAC ADVICE.
> >> This has been discussed  and confirmed .pls refer ti WP 2 and CCWG
> >> previous NOTES and REPORTS Regards Kavouss
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >>> On 25 Jan 2016, at 10:57, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On 24/01/2016 21:32, Greg Shatan wrote:
> >>>> Paul,
> >>>>
> >>>> I was halfway through writing an email that said exactly that.
> >>>>
> >>>> This may be due to the lawyers re-interpreting "duly taken into
> account"
> >>>> in a way that I don't agree with and which I think is incorrect.
> >>>
> >>> I also agree that this would be a substantial change.
> >>>
> >>> To support that, I would ask you to consider the follow, not
> >>> unlikely, scenario.
> >>>
> >>> The GAC has advised the Board to do something, but what it has
> >>> advised is not entirely clearly, and there is certainly ambiguity as
> >>> to how it might be implemented. The Board has then done something. A
> >>> materially affected party, unhappy with the Board's action and
> >>> preferring an alternative that would take a more extreme view of the
> >>> GAC advice, challenges the action in the IRP. The Board takes the
> >>> view that it has taken the GAC's advice into account and that what it
> >>> has done is reasonably consistent with the GAC advice; the
> >>> complainant argues that the action was not consistent with it.
> >>>
> >>> If the IRP finds that factually the complainant is correct to allege
> >>> that the Board's action was not consisistent with the GAC advice,
> >>> what is the consequence of that? It seems to vary according to which
> >>> standard we choose:
> >>>
> >>> - If the current standard applies, that the Board "duly take into
> >>> account" GAC advice, the IRP may still find that the Board did do that:
> >>> since they noted the GAC's advice, considered it, and believed
> >>> (albeit
> >>> incorrectly) that what they were doing constituted a reasonably
> >>> implementation of it, it is hard to say they did not meet this
> standard.
> >>> The IRP will however order the Board that to bring itself back into
> >>> compliance with the bylaws it must notify the GAC that it has acted
> >>> inconsistently, and try to find a mutually acceptable solution. The
> >>> action, however, may stand: a solution need not necessarily involve
> >>> cancelling the action, but might be found through supplementing the
> >>> action with another.
> >>>
> >>> - If Holly's standard applies, that the Board "must not act
> >>> inconsistently" with GAC advice, then the mere finding that the Board
> >>> has acted inconsistently invalidates that decision. The action must
> >>> be quashed, if it is possible to do so; failure to do so would
> >>> consistute perpetuating the bylaws breach.
> >>>
> >>> This is a material change, that may significantly affect the outcome.
> >>>
> >>> Personally, I do not believe this change is needed or desirable. For
> >>> that reason, I respectfully disagree with accepting Holly's advice on
> >>> this particular case.
> >>>
> >>> Kind Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Malcolm.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>          Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523  Head of Public
> >>> Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange
> >>> | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
> >>>
> >>>               London Internet Exchange Ltd
> >>>     Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ
> >>>
> >>>       Company Registered in England No. 3137929
> >>>     Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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/20160125/dcba514b/attachment-0001.html>