[CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution

Mon Feb 1 22:08:42 UTC 2016

+1 to Jorge´s comments
Regards
Olga

2016-02-01 18:41 GMT-03:00 <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>:

> Dear Greg
>
> I guess other GAC colleagues may confirm that the 2/3 were part of a
> package deal agreed in Dublin by consensus. A package deal which contained
> other elements different to the 2/3.
>
> I don't feel it is helpful to construe now that the 2/3 were never part of
> such a consensus, although expressed perhaps in a complex wording.
>
> It doesn't help in achieving consensus, for which many of us have worked
> very hard - inside our constituencies and across constituencies.
>
> And to compromise means to recognize and value the positions of others as
> legitimate.
>
> And if Rec 11 is intended to be a compromise solution (as was the text
> currently in the third draft report) I feel that it cannot be just a 100%
> win for one constituency.
>
> It should maintain a fair balance between the views expressed by those
> constituencies.
>
> regards
>
> Jorge
>
> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>
> Am 01.02.2016 um 22:29 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>:
>
> Citation to the "GAC Dublin consensus" is quite interesting, when you look
> at it a bit.
>
> First, assuming there were a GAC Dublin consensus on the 2/3 threshold,
> that does not bind the CCWG nor is the CCWG required to give that consensus
> any type of deference, aside from the treatment it would give to a position
> held by any of the Chartering Organizations.  It is true that it would be
> "difficult to reconcile" a majority vote with a 2/3 vote, but that's true
> of every position of every organization that is different from the CCWG's
> position.  We are under no special obligation to reconcile the CCWG's
> outcomes with "GAC Dublin consensus."
>
> Second, in looking for "GAC Dublin consensus" what I found seem to fall
> far short of that.  Specifically, the GAC Dublin Communique says the
> following (in a section that is not "GAC Advice"):
>
> The GAC recognizes that much progress has been made by the
> CCWG-Accountability in its ongoing work, and welcomes the CCWG’s
> achievements to date and supports the efforts to finalise its proposal for
> enhancing ICANN accountability as required for the IANA stewardship
> transition.
>
> In assessing the specific accountability recommendations put forth so far
> by the CCWG Accountability, the GAC considers that whatever the final
> outcome of this process may be, the new accountability framework to be
> agreed upon must preserve the current role of governments in ICANN.
>
> The discussions on Stress Test 18 have helped the GAC to have a better
> understanding of the different views on the issue. In assessing the
> different rationales presented so far related to Stress Test 18, the GAC
> considered:
> • The need that each and every Advisory Committee ensures that the advice
> provided is clear and reflects the consensus view of the Committee;
> • The need that each and every Advisory Committee should preserve its own
> autonomy in its definition of consensus;
> • The value the Board attributes to receiving consensus advice;
> • The recommendation of the BGRI WG, as reiterated by the ATRT2, to set
> the threshold for the ICANN Board to reject GAC advice to a 2/3 majority
> voting, consistent with the threshold established for rejection of ccNSO
> and GNSO PDP recommendations. 6 In view of the above, having considered
> concerns expressed by various parties, the GAC agreed to further work on
> the issue of Stress Test 18, and to submit any further input to the CCWG
> taking into account the timelines of the CCWG. GAC Members will continue to
> work within the CCWG to finalise the proposal for enhancing ICANN
> accountability.
>
> Perhaps I am not very good at reading GAC communiques, but I don't see in
> there any statement that the GAC came to a consensus view in support of
> the 2/3 majority voting threshold.  It only says that the GAC "considered"
> the 2/3 threshold when "assessing" "rationales" "related to Stress Test
> 18."  What am I missing?
>
> Finally, this states that the GAC considers that the new accountability
> framework "must preserve the current role of governments in ICANN."  It
> seems to me that the simple majority vote does that, without any need for a
> higher threshold to satisfy that criterion.
>
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 1:57 PM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
> Hi Steve
>
> I feel that alternative 6 would be very difficult to reconcile with the
> Dublin GAC consensus as several of us have already expressed.
>
> Becky's proposal is also on the table and seems to address concerns
> expressed by gnso colleagues, while not changing the 2/3 which is part of
> the GAC Dublin consensus.
>
> Therefore I feel it is worthwile exploring it further.
>
> regards
>
> Jorge
>
> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>
> Am 01.02.2016 um 19:35 schrieb Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org
> <mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org><mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org<mailto:
> sdelbianco at netchoice.org>>>:
>
> If we are going to consider alternatives to Rec 11 on our next call,
> please keep in mind that last week we discussed another alternative that
> was published in the Rec 11 1st reading document<
> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Final+Report?preview=/56989168/58002207/Rec%2011%20-%20GAC%20advice%20First%20reading%20conclusion%20v4_SDB.pdf
> >.
>
> On page 1 we listed these 2 alternative ways to address Stress Test 18:
>
> 5. Confirm or discuss recommendation for 2/3 threshold (11 votes) for
> Board to reject GAC advice that was approved by GAC general agreement in
> the absence of any formal objection. The present threshold is majority (9
> votes).  CCWGshould evaluatewhether requiring 2 more board votes to reject
> GAC advice is an appropriate threshold, given that GAC would be required to
> approve such advice by general agreement in the absence of any formal
> objection.
>
> or
>
> 6. Discuss request that GAC advice must be approved by general agreement
> in the absence of any formal objection, under the present threshold for a
> majority of board to reject GAC advice.
>
> We briefly discussed #6 above, as it was consistent with comments from
> many in CCWG, and reflected the original recommendation from the Stress
> Test work party in February-2105.
>
>
> 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
> "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto:
> Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto:
> Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>>>
> Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 11:52 AM
> To: Becky Burr <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
> ><mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>>, Phil
> Buckingham <phil at dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil at dotadvice.co.uk><mailto:
> phil at dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil at dotadvice.co.uk>>>, 'Kavouss Arasteh' <
> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com><mailto:
> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>>
> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org><mailto:
> acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <
> thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net><mailto:thomas at rickert.net
> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>>, 'CCWG Accountability' <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution
>
> Becky,
>
> Could you clarify a couple of things for me? First, this would apply to
> all GAC advice, correct? Second, if GAC is not included, the thresholds for
> exercising powers 1, 2, 5 and 7 would have to be adjusted to prevent a
> unanimity requirement for exercising them, correct?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brett
>
> From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:
> Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>]
> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 10:49 AM
> To: Phil Buckingham; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; Schaefer, Brett
> Cc: acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org><mailto:
> acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>; 'Thomas Rickert';
> 'CCWG Accountability'
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution
>
> Kavouss¹ 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 ³2 bites at the apple² 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 Board¹s implementation as
> exceeding the scope of ICANN¹s 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 GAC¹s vote should not be counted to block use of a
> community power to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. I
> would note that Jorge notes that this principle should be applied across
> the Board. I don¹t 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<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile:
> +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><
> http://neustar.biz>
> <http://www.neustar.biz>
>
>
>
>
> On 2/1/16, 10:26 AM, "Phil Buckingham" <phil at dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:
> phil at dotadvice.co.uk><mailto:phil at dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:
> 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><mailto:
> 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
> >Kavouss Arasteh
> >Sent: 01 February 2016 13:35
> >To: Schaefer, Brett
> >Cc: acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org><mailto:
> acct-staff at icann.org<mailto: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
> <mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org
> <mailto: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<tel:202-608-6097>
> >>
> >>heritage.org<http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org><
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage
> >>.org_&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa
> >>hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=TnI7iy91U78v
> >>r2iGqvQgUvyuD2Gjh7I0sPPGfgh1zlk&e= >
> >>
> >> On Jan 31, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Greg Shatan
> ><gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>%
> 3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:3cmailto%3Agregshatanipc 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><mailto:
> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com><mailto:
> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>%
> 3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:
> 3cmailto%3Akavouss.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-Community at icann.org><mailto:
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160201/82169978/attachment-0001.html>