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

[Matthew Shears]

Keith

+ 1

Thanks for articulating my growing unease.

Matthew

On 17/11/2015 19:41, 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

-- 

Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151118/0f0e673a/attachment.html>