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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

This makes a lot of sense to me.

avri


On 17-Nov-15 14:41, Drazek, Keith wrote:
>
> 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
>
>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus