RE: [council] fw: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out

[Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

For those Councilors not following the CCWG list, I just posed these questions 
to Chairman Crocker/no response as of yet---

Steve:

Some questions regarding this Board input at the 59th minute of the 11th hour 
(metaphorically speaking):

  *   "The Board is against any changes to the long established equilibrium and 
fairness among the different stakeholders within ICANN." -- Does that mean the 
Board is opposed to raising the raising the threshold for rejection of GAC 
advice above majority vote, as that is a change in long established practice 
(whereas locking in a definition of GAC advice that memorializes its long 
established practice is not)?
  *   " If there is a graceful way to remove this matter from the immediate 
pressure of the deadline of submitting this proposal and make it a priority 
matter for either the implementation phase or Work Stream 2, we think there 
will be a solution which is genuinely good for everyone."-What is the Board 
suggesting should be removed from the final Recommendations at this very late 
hour? And how can something be left for the implementation phase if it is 
removed from the Recommendations, as those involved in Bylaws drafting that is 
the heart of the implementation phase should have no latitude in introducing 
any matter that is not part of an approved Recommendation?

Your response would help clarify our understanding of this new Board position.

Best regards, Philip


Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:33 PM
To: egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] fw: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out

Thanks, Ed.    I also won't add any color, except to agree that this is all 
coming very late.  The train had effectively left the station (and in fact was 
approaching the next stop).

J.

From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on 
behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>>
Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 10:57
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [council] fw: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out

Fellow Councillors,

For those not on the CCWG mailing list, I wanted to share this rather 
'interesting' post from Steve Crocker. I won't comment other than to note that 
the deadline for minority statements was yesterday and the final Supplemental 
report is due today. Nevertheless, this is something we are going to have to 
deal with.

Best,

Ed Morris



________________________________
From: "Steve Crocker" <steve.crocker@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:steve.crocker@xxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 4:29 PM
To: "Mathieu Weill" <Mathieu.Weill@xxxxxxxx<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@xxxxxxxx>>, 
"León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" 
<leonfelipe@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:leonfelipe@xxxxxxxxxx>>, "Thomas Rickert" 
<thomas@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:thomas@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "Steve Crocker" <steve.crocker@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:steve.crocker@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"Icann-board ICANN" <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"Accountability Community" 
<accountability-cross-community@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:accountability-cross-community@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out

CCWG Colleagues,

The Board has a serious and continued concern about the issues being raised 
that may result in the reduction of the GAC's ability to participate in 
community decision making. This is most noticeable in the question of 
thresholds for board removal, however this is not an issue about removal or 
even thresholds, it is one part of the community being (or perceiving that it 
is being) sidelined. The Board's concerns with this issue are not about Board 
removal, but about maintaining the balanced multistakeholder model.

The Board is against any changes to the long established equilibrium and 
fairness among the different stakeholders within ICANN. The Board has long 
supported a threshold of four participants for Board removal in the ultimate 
escalation method proposed by the CCWG. Selecting one portion of the ICANN 
community and removing them from the equation - just through the ability to say 
that the community is unhappy with the acceptance of GAC advice that is within 
ICANN's bylaws - raises significant concerns about how the multistakeholder 
model, and the ultimate stability of ICANN as an organization, can be 
maintained. This carved out exception undercuts the established role of 
governments within the multi stakeholder process, and could introduce new 
issues with the acceptance of ICANN's model undermining the work of the CCWG.

We understand that there are concerns with this path from within other parts of 
ICANN community, including members of the GAC and ALAC. The best course, in our 
opinion, would be a careful and objective discussion of the whole matter of how 
advice from ALL parties is appropriately considered within ICANN. If there is a 
graceful way to remove this matter from the immediate pressure of the deadline 
of submitting this proposal and make it a priority matter for either the 
implementation phase or Work Stream 2, we think there will be a solution which 
is genuinely good for everyone.

We encourage you to share the CCWG's proposal with the Chartering Organizations 
while the dialog on this outstanding point continues.

Thank you,

Steve Crocker
Chair, ICANN Board of Directors

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@xxxxxxxxx>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16