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

Mark Carvell mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk
Mon Feb 1 18:30:34 UTC 2016


Thanks Steve.  That's very helpful - need to build on this in procedural
terms I suggest.

Kind regards - appreciate your efforts as always!

Mark

Mark Carvell
Global Internet Governance Policy
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk
tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062

On 1 February 2016 at 17:45, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
wrote:

> Mark — in the Dublin breakout meetings for CCWG, the community decision
> group surfaced this idea:
>
> Within the community decision process, each AC/SO would decide, using its
> own methods, one of four decisions:
>
> it supports the proposed exercise of the community power,
> it objects to the exercise of the community power,
> It wishes to advise the other community participants if its views, but
> neither supports nor opposes,
> it wishes to remain silent on the matter.
>
>
> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> Mark Carvell <mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk>
> Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 11:19 AM
> To: Finn Petersen <FinPet at erst.dk>
> Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
> 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
> tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062
>
> On 1 February 2016 at 13:22, Finn Petersen <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
>> Direct: +45 3529 1013
>>
>> Mobile: +45 2072 7131
>> E-mail: FinPet at erst.dk
>> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk
>>
>> 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] *På vegne af *Burr,
>> Becky
>> *Sendt:* 29. januar 2016 21:05
>> *Til:* Greg Shatan; Mueller, Milton L
>> *Cc:* 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  *Mobile:*+1.202.352.6367*/**neustar.biz*
>> <http://www.neustar.biz>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> *Date: *Friday, January 29, 2016 at 2:38 PM
>> *To: *"Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>
>> *Cc: *Accountability Community <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>
>> 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] *On Behalf Of *Greg
>> Shatan
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 29, 2016 11:58 AM
>> *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>> *Cc:* 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>
>> 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> 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 >:
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>
>> 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
>>
>> 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
>> 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
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160201/653d0190/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list