[CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Feb 1 21:25:15 UTC 2016
If we are seriously going to consider the 60% option, we need to be precise.
- The current option is majority, which is greater than 50%
- the 2rd draft proposal is supermajority or equal to or greater than 66 2/3%
In this case, are we talking about equal to or
greater than 60%, or just greater than 60%?
Depending on the number of Board Members voting
at the time, it could make a difference.
For 16 Board members, both yield 10, but it
differs for 15, 10 and 5 (the latter hopefully being irrelevant!).
Alan
At 01/02/2016 11:43 AM, Burr, Becky wrote:
>Kavouss, I do not disagree with the 60%, I think it improves the current
>situation.
>
>
>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>
>
>
>
>
>On 2/1/16, 11:40 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Dear Becky
> >While I fully agree with your vision
> >It would require extensive analysis which at this stage would further
> >delay our work.
> >It may also create additional obstacle that required time.
> >Pls kindly agree with 60% not because I gave suggested but due to its
> >dimple applications d time constrains
> >Regards
> >Kavousd
> >
> >
> >Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On 1 Feb 2016, at 16:48, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:
> >>
> >> Kavouss©ö proposal (Board may reject GAC Advice only with support of 60%
> >>of
> >> its members) is simple and it is a compromise - essentially midway
> >>between
> >> a majority and a 2/3rds standard.
> >>
> >> My proposal attempts to address some of the structural concerns that
> >>arise
> >> when you look at Recommendations 1, 10 and 11 together. Specifically,
> >>it
> >> is intended to address the ©ø2 bites at the apple©÷ situation when (1) the
> >> GAC issues Advice, which is then accepted by the Board - even where a
> >> majority (but not 60% or 66%) of the Board opposes that and (2) the
> >> community would like to consider challenging the Board©ös implementation
> >>as
> >> exceeding the scope of ICANN©ös Mission. In that situation, the GAC has
> >> indicated that it will participate in the escalation decision regarding
> >> invocation a community power, for example through an IRP. I propose
> >>that
> >> we should maintain the current threshold (e.g., no more than 2 SO/ACs
> >> object), but that the GAC©ös vote should not be counted to block use of a
> >> community power to challenge the Board©ös implementation of GAC Advice.
> >>I
> >> would note that Jorge notes that this principle should be applied across
> >> the Board. I don©öt agree, as I think that GAC Advice is not comparable
> >>to
> >> the output of, for example, a PDP process.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 2/1/16, 10:26 AM, "Phil Buckingham" <phil at dotadvice.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear Kavouss,
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for your compromise proposal/ solution. The CCWG really does
> >>> need
> >>> to get over this huge hurdle.
> >>> I am struggling to keep to up.
> >>> In preparation for the call tomorrow , could you/ Co Chairs summarise
> >>> your
> >>> and Becky ' alternative recommendation. The key question to me is
> >>>which
> >>> is
> >>> easier to implement and the simplest to understand.
> >>> Many thanks,
> >>> Phil
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> >>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
> >>> Kavouss Arasteh
> >>> Sent: 01 February 2016 13:35
> >>> To: Schaefer, Brett
> >>> Cc: acct-staff at icann.org; Thomas Rickert; CCWG Accountability
> >>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution
> >>>
> >>> Dear Brett
> >>> I think it id more straight forward to take 60% than Becky ,s proposal
> >>>not
> >>> because mine is better but more simpler.
> >>> Regards
> >>> I appeal to you and your distinguished colleagues as well as Becky to
> >>> kindly consider 60% with favourable thought Kavouss
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>
> >>>>> On 1 Feb 2016, at 13:21, Schaefer, Brett
> >>>>><Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't the arguments against the 2/3
> >>>>requirement,
> >>> which is after all 66%, apply just as much to the 60% proposal?
> >>>>
> >>>> I think Becky's proposal gets much closer to addressing the substance
> >>>>of
> >>> the concerns raised.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>> Brett Schaefer
> >>>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> >>>> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
> >>>> Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation
> >>>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> >>>> Washington, DC 20002
> >>>> 202-608-6097
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.c
> om/v2/url?u=http-3A__herita>>>>ge
> >>>>
> >>>>.org_&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxd
> >>>>Ya
> >>>>
> >>>>hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=TnI7iy91U7
> >>>>8v
> >>>> r2iGqvQgUvyuD2Gjh7I0sPPGfgh1zlk&e= >
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Jan 31, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Greg Shatan
> >>>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> All,
> >>>>
> >>>> I wanted to pluck this suggestion out of the email swamp.
> >>>>
> >>>> Kavouss made an alternative proposal concerning another threshold
> >>>> between
> >>> Simple Majority and 2/3 -- the alternative threshold is 60%.
> >>>>
> >>>> Speaking only for myself, this could be a simple but creative way out
> >>>>of
> >>> the current situation. It is a literally a middle ground between the
> >>> current majority threshold and the previously proposed 2/3 threshold:
> >>>>
> >>>> Votes
> >>>>
> >>>> Percentage
> >>>>
> >>>> Result
> >>>>
> >>>> 8/16
> >>>>
> >>>> 50%
> >>>>
> >>>> No
> >>>>
> >>>> 9/16
> >>>>
> >>>> 56.25%
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, by majority
> >>>>
> >>>> 10/16
> >>>>
> >>>> 62.50%
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, if by 60%
> >>>>
> >>>> 11/16
> >>>>
> >>>> 68.75%
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, if by 2/3
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This would require one more vote than the current threshold and one
> >>>>less
> >>> vote than the 2/3 threshold. Win/win?
> >>>>
> >>>> Greg
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
> >>>> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>> Dear Co-Chairs
> >>>> Pls kindly confirm that you have received my last alternative proposal
> >>>> concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3. This
> >>>> alternative threshould is 60% There has been many cases considered
> >>>> with that level of threshold Pls confirm its recption and confirm
> >>>> actions to be taken before you go to poll Awaiting for your reply
> >>>> Kavouss
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>>>
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C>>>>
> ommunity at icann.org>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm
> >>>>an
> >>>>
> >>>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL
> >>>>C_
> >>>>
> >>>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5v
> >>>>bn
> >>>>
> >>>>Y6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&
> >>>>e=
> >>>> <h
> >>>> ttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>>>
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C>>>>
> ommunity at icann.org>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm
> >>>>an
> >>>>
> >>>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL
> >>>>C_
> >>>>
> >>>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5v
> >>>>bn
> >>>>
> >>>>Y6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&
> >>>>e=
> >>>> <h
> >>>> ttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>>>
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C>>>>
> ommunity at icann.org>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm
> >>>>an
> >>>>
> >>>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL
> >>>>C_
> >>>>
> >>>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5v
> >>>>bn
> >>>>
> >>>>Y6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&
> >>>>e=
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >>>
> >>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
> >>>n_
> >>>
> >>>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
> >>>lU
> >>>
> >>>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY
> >>>6b
> >>> FNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&e=
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >>>
> >>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
> >>>n_
> >>>
> >>>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
> >>>lU
> >>>
> >>>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY
> >>>6b
> >>> FNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&e=
> >>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list