[CCWG-ACCT] ST-18 and 2/3 Threshold Proposal

[Paul Rosenzweig]

+1

 

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

 
<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl
e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

 

 

From: Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 2:41 PM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] ST-18 and 2/3 Threshold Proposal

 

All,

 

Here are my current thoughts on our ongoing discussions around ST-18, the
2/3 threshold issue, and the GAC's participation in the community mechanism:

 

The CCWG's mandate is to empower the community as a whole to better hold
ICANN and its Board accountable. Our mission is not to modify the influence
of one SO or AC relative to the Board, or to one another, nor to enable or
encourage such change in the future. This process should not be used by
individual groups to seek increased influence relative to others. That's why
we are proposing a unified community as the sole Designator, and set
thresholds for decisions supported by multiple ACs and SOs. 

 

Under the current discussions, it appears that a subset of GAC members want
three new "powers" that do not exist today: (1) the right to hold a
decisional role in the community mechanism, (2) a 2/3 threshold for Board
rejection of consensus advice, and (3) the ability to adjust the definition
of consensus that would trigger the Board's special obligations.  Why is the
CCWG now focusing on the 11th-hour introduction of the 2/3 board threshold
along with flexibility to change current practice on the definition of
consensus? Both of those stand to increase the influence of the GAC alone
over the Board and other community groups.

 

No one is trying to tell the GAC how to define consensus for its internal
deliberations or advice. Rather, ST-18 simply reinforces the current
practice that the Board's obligations kick in only when the GAC's consensus
is consistent with current practice - reflecting the UN definition/absence
of formal objection. Any change to this practice must be viewed as
empowering the GAC alone over the Board and potentially in a
disproportionate way relative to others.  

 

By participating in the community mechanism as a co-equal, the GAC will be
able to contribute to this joint community empowerment in a decisional way,
if it chooses to do so. This is already a big change (that some are
uncomfortable with) but it shows that the rest of the community respects the
important role of governments and the GAC in our community processes.  

 

In my view, the CCWG should resist pressure to intentionally or
inadvertently increase the relative influence of any one group, and stay
focused on the joint community empowerment envisioned in our charter. This
should not be an opportunity for any group to secure individual benefits
they have previously been denied.

 

Thanks and regards,

Keith

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151117/bad3f7a7/attachment.html>