[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing

Burr, Becky Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
Mon Feb 1 16:23:10 UTC 2016


I have no problem with this suggestion.  Advice should always be welcome.

J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

From: Mark Carvell <mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk>>
Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 11:19 AM
To: Finn Petersen <FinPet at erst.dk<mailto:FinPet at erst.dk>>
Cc: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing

Dear CCWG colleagues

As you know, the UK Government supports Recommendation 11. I believe there is support outside the GAC for the 2/3 threshold for rejection of GAC advice.  I agree that there is potential in Becky's proposal for a compromise solution for obviating the double opportunity risk.

While the GAC would not participating in some potentially critical decisions under this arrangement, the community should recognise the value of the GAC providing advice in the form of guidance that inter alia recounts the rationale for its original advice to the Board.

I also suggest more generally that some formality is accorded to the process whereby any non-participating AC can provide advice, in order to ensure that such advice when received is duly recorded, taken fully into account and responded to, before the participating SO/ACs proceed to a decision.

Kind regards

Mark

Mark Carvell
​United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN​

Global Internet Governance Policy
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk>
tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062<tel:%2B44%20%280%29%2020%207211%206062>

On 1 February 2016 at 13:22, Finn Petersen <FinPet at erst.dk<mailto:FinPet at erst.dk>> wrote:
Dear Becky, Co-chairs, all,

As we have stated in the Danish comments to the CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal, we fully support Recommendation 11. We believe it is a carefully drafted compromise, which we hoped (and still do) would achieve the support such a compromise deserves in order to move the CCWG proposal forward.  We would also like to remind colleagues that the 2/3 threshold for the ICANN Board rejecting GAC consensus advice was agreed by the GAC in the GAC Communiqué Dublin.

However, we feel Becky’s proposal is a very constructive way forward and is worth discussing further. It would also eliminate the need to do a poll at the CCWG-meeting tomorrow morning. It would be unfortunate go down that road at this moment in time as it seems that Becky’s proposal addresses some of the concerns expressed. Also it is not clear to us whether the result (based on the recent discussion on the list) would take us any further in our work.

ICANN’s communities need not be further divided – it is time for convergence and compromise!

Best,

Finn


Kind regards

Finn Petersen
Director of International ICT Rellations

DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY

Dahlerups Pakhus
Langelinie Allé 17
DK-2100 København Ø
Telephone: +45 3529 1000<tel:%2B45%203529%201000>
Direct: +45 3529 1013<tel:%2B45%203529%201013>
Mobile: +45 2072 7131<tel:%2B45%202072%207131>
E-mail: FinPet at erst.dk<mailto:FinPet at erst.dk>
www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Gevk6YjbF3cqPQVZB8fb8CWFnsVgAWHqsIrkr8ch6N4&s=Z1lrBx4XGWL8QuVkMod-62dfXWjLVsL3v1sJAS0a1lQ&e=>

MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH

PPlease consider the environment before printing this email.


Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] På vegne af Burr, Becky
Sendt: 29. januar 2016 21:05
Til: Greg Shatan; Mueller, Milton L
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing

I have a proposal for discussion.

Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission.  What if we accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice.  In other words, the GAC  would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s Mission.

I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds rejection threshold.

Just a thought -
J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office:+1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932>  Mobile:+1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>/neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, January 29, 2016 at 2:38 PM
To: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing

Milton,

I agree with your assessment of the situation, and I think you are likely correct about the answer to my question.  I wanted to see if I had overlooked positive support for the 2/3 majority as such.  It appears that (subject to further responses) I have not.

Greg

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:
Greg:
It was clear from the earlier (pre-transition) process that there was virtually no positive support outside GAC for the proposition that the board could only reject its advice with a 2/3 majority. There was, in fact, overwhelming opposition to the 2/3 threshold.
Insofar as that idea gained acceptance (not support), it was perceived as a compromise that would help the GAC to accept a requirement that it continue to act on the basis of UN consensus.

So I think the answer to your question, “is there any affirmative support for the 2/3 threshold?” outside the GAC is clearly no.

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 11:58 AM
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing

Alan,

I think you misunderstand the question.  Of course ALAC has decided to join a position supported by the bulk of the other participants, even where it did not really agree with that position.  Every stakeholder and stakeholder structure has done that, here (and in every other WG, I assume), to avoid being an outlier and to honor the building of consensus.  This is the usual move at some point in the consensus-building process, when dealing with a position that has broad multistakeholder support.

But this virtually always starts with a position that already has significant multistakeholder support.

I am honestly unclear whether the 2/3 proposal, on its own, has broad multistakeholder support.  I could jump to conclusions, but I prefer not to.  Hence the question, which I think is quite relevant.  First, if I go back to my constituency and tell them that we are the outlier and this has broad multistakeholder support, that may be persuasive to some of them, committed as we are to consensus-driven processes.  Second, I think it is relevant to understand the context of this particular position, isolated from discussions of the value of compromise and other such things.

Greg


On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>> wrote:
Greg,

That is a simple question, but not a particularly relevant one in my mind. I and ALAC have accepted a LOT of things that we do not believe "is a good idea, or enhances ICANN's accountability, or corrects a problem/deficiency in the Bylaws, or is needed for the transition". So have other parts of the community.

I would ask the opposite. What is the HARM? The overall number of times that GAC advice is rejected is small. I find it hard to imagine that there will be any substantive difference in outcomes in the future with the two alternatives. If people want to die in the ditch (so to speak) over the difference, I guess that is what will happen.

Alan

At 28/01/2016 06:24 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
I'd like to ask a simple question.

Aside from members of the GAC, is there any affirmative support for the 2/3 threshold?  In other words, does any member or participant think that this is a good idea, or enhances ICANN's accountability, or corrects a problem/deficiency in the Bylaws, or is needed for the transition? How about any chartering organization or constituent part of a chartering organization?

I'm not asking about the value of compromise, or the effect (or lack thereof) of the change, or whether it's something you can live with.  I'm asking about affirmative support.

Greg

[cross-posts to GAC list removed]

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
GAC did not formally reject the Rec 11 in announcing that " no consensus is reached " GNSO and its spokemen push for their objection, GAC must formally reject the Recommendation as currently GAC lost o-1 because of Stress Test 18 ,if such ST remains and 2/ 3 supermajority becomes Simple Majority then GAC would loose o-2 .That is not fair .There should not win loose against GAC,
WIN-WIN YES, loose-loose yes ,for every body BUT NOT LOOSE FOR gac and win for the others .
THAT IS NOT FAIR
Kavouss
2016-01-28 23:45 GMT+01:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> >:
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:26:54PM +0000, Jeff Neuman wrote:
> Where in writing has the GAC stated that it will reject the accountability proposal of the 2/3 threshold is not in there.
I didn't intend to suggest that they'd stated that in writing, but
rather to suggest that the GAC had consensus around the 2/3 number.
But this'll teach me to go from memory, because I was relying on my
recollection of the Dublin communiqé.  In fact it does not exactly say
that the GAC has consensus about the 2/3 threshold, so I'm wrong.
I still believe that the compromise position is an effective way
forward that actually gives no additional real power to the GAC
(because of the new Empowered Community) while yet granting the 2/3
number that many seem to think is important.  But the claim in favour
of 2/3 is indeed weaker given the GAC's stated positions.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=>

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=>

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=>



_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Gevk6YjbF3cqPQVZB8fb8CWFnsVgAWHqsIrkr8ch6N4&s=uqonWpFDoij_k9kZhQfnyMQbcyfbly_-w7LqHaMZxq0&e=>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160201/ce6001d8/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list