[CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sat Jan 30 18:01:33 UTC 2016

My Dear esteemed  Friend Andrew, Dear esteemed Friend  Malcolm, Dear All,

Thank you very much and thank Malcolm very much for his wishful thinking.

Such approach while may enforce the subject matter and at the same time may
serve to find a solution .However, the GAC advise which is ,once made,
would be sent to the Board for its consideration within the specified
course of actions mentioned in the Bylaws, then, according to Malcolm
proposal, no matter how effective it would be ,create another Step ,PDP,

a) One additional Step

b) Dependency to another entity,

c) Inestimable delay

d) Need to drastically modify Bylaws

e) Inhomogeneity in the process

e) Several legal consequences, intended, unintended, unforeseen complex

Believe me, I cannot buy it and I strongly recommend GAC Members NOT TO BUY


Let us search for other solutions, including the one that I have suggested
and supported by several GAC Members


2016-01-30 18:05 GMT+01:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>:

> Hi Kavouss,
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 01:33:06PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> > *DO YOU WANT TO sUBORDINATE ONE community ( GAC) to another Community (
> > GNSO) ?*
> I didn't read Malcolm's proposal that way.  Instead, it seems to me
> that his proposal offers a way to acknowledge the special role of the
> GAC (its advice needs to be treated separately in the process) while
> increasing the importance of the multi-stakeholder process overall
> (the advice becomes a formal part of the PDP instead of something that
> happens outside it).  The real force of his suggetion is not to
> subordinate one community to another.  Instead, it de-emphasises the
> role of the board in arbitrating among different stakeholders in the
> ICANN community.  I think it's a really constructive suggestion, and
> I'd urge us all to consider that line of thinking.
> We are up against a very serious deadline.  We need to find a creative
> way out of the impasse, and I think that anything that strengthens the
> multi-stakeholder approach (in line with the NTIA's guidance) ought to
> be considered seriously.
> Best regards,
> A
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160130/2ea2ef53/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list