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

Wed Feb 3 02:08:39 UTC 2016

+ 1 Greg, Brett and Keith

On 02/02/2016 09:52, Drazek, Keith wrote:
>
> Agreed.
>
> Concerns around the “interlinkage” of 1, 10 and 11 were clearly 
> signaled within the CCWG prior to the finalization of Version 3 and 
> reinforced again in the GNSO comments. This is not a new development.
>
> I hope that the Arasteh/Burr combo will help us move this forward to a 
> resolution.
>
> Regards,
>
> Keith
>
> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf 
> Of *Schaefer, Brett
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 02, 2016 12:41 PM
> *To:* Greg Shatan; Kavouss Arasteh
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC 
> consensus, and finishing
>
> Well said.
>
> *From:*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:* Tuesday, February 02, 2016 12:25 PM
> *To:* Kavouss Arasteh
> *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
>
> I don't think that's the intent or effect of Andrew's email.  I think 
> he was just setting the stage and working through an analysis to show 
> his thinking, which with I generally agree.  One could quibble about 
> whether they are independent or complementary, but they are not 
> "mutually exclusive" as a matter of analysis.
>
> As a bargaining position, it is valid to say that they are mutually 
> exclusive.  It is equally valid to say that they are a package.  For 
> that matter, it's also valid bargaining position to say that the only 
> acceptable package is Becky's proposal and no increase in the voting 
> threshold. And it's valid to say that we want to keep the voting 
> threshold at simple majority and we don't really care about Becky's 
> proposal (so we'll take it if it's there, but give it up if it holds 
> the line at simple majority).  It's all fine and good to show our 
> opening positions -- but where do we go from there?
>
> In any event, this is an interlinked issue of 1, 10 and 11, so one 
> can't say that any of these are truly "closed" until they are all 
> closed.  But that doesn't mean everything is back on the table.
>
> Greg
>
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Kavouss Arasteh 
> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Adrew
> You gave opened the Entire Recs 1 and 11 for discussion
> Good luck
> I do not  think that was the issue given to the devoted group.
> If every body to be intentionally and expressly confused then the two 
> above-mentioned RECs.  to be opened entirely.
> Tks
> Kavouss
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> > On 2 Feb 2016, at 17:14, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com 
> <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:24:58PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> >> The issue was discussed and many participants clearly mentioned 
> that their main concerns was not to empower GAC to participate in an 
> IRP dealing with GAC advice as objecting SO/AC but could agree to 
> retain 2/3,
> >
> > I am not exactly sure which "the issue" we're talking about here,
> > because it seems to me there are multiple interlocking issues:
> >
> >    (a) the threshold at which the Board will need to
> >    vote/agree/whatever if it is to decide not to accept GAC consensus
> >    advice;
> >
> >    (b) exactly how the board concludes that some advice from the GAC
> >    is in fact GAC consensus;
> >
> >    (c) whether the GAC gets to be part of the decision-making at
> >    ICANN or remains merely advisory;
> >
> >    (d) if GAC is part of the decision-making, whether it gets to
> >    participate in decisions affecting board decisions about GAC
> >    advice taken under item (b).
> >
> > Here's what I think is going on:
> >
> > On (a), we had previous proposals for the existing threshold (50%+1)
> > and a higher threshold (2/3).  Some have asserted that the 2/3
> > threshold is the GAC's position at Dublin, but in reviewing the
> > materials I cannot find the proof of that.  The 2/3 level was put in
> > draft 3 subject conditions on (b).  Some of the comments on draft 3
> > have argued that without changes at least to (d), the draft 3 proposal
> > is no good.  Others seem to have argued that anything above 50%+1 is
> > not allowed (I think this is a position that has been attributed to
> > the GNSO lately).  And finally, you propose to split the difference
> > and set it at 60%, which with the current numbers of the board
> > assuming all are present means just one additional vote.
> >
> > On (b), draft 3 set the mechanism at the historical meaning of
> > consensus that the board could use in making its determination.
> > Previously, that had appeared controversial, and it was the adjustment
> > to language that, it seemed to me, cause the "US Thanksgiving
> > compromise" to be reached.  That compromise was apparently not
> > durable, but nobody now seems to be arguing that the board's criteria
> > for considering something "GAC consensus advice" ought to be anything
> > than full consensus with no formal objection.  I hope we can leave
> > this alone, but I think Malcolm's line of argument basically goes to
> > this item.
> >
> > (c) is something that only the GAC can say, and it's vexing (as Becky
> > pointed out) that we don't yet seem to have an answer from the GAC.  I
> > think at bottom it is this change to which Robin regularly objects, at
> > least if I understand her arguments.
> >
> > (d) is the issue that Becky's proposal is designed to solve.
> > Basically, her proposal is that, if the GAC decides to issue advice
> > that would trigger (a), then it's not allowed to invoke its ability to
> > do (c) as well.  This has nothing to do with the threshold in (a).
> > Instead, it's a branching function: which path does the GAC choose?
> > Since only the GAC has the ability to choose one or the other, the
> > rules only apply to the GAC; but I think they could in principle apply
> > to any body that had this ability.
> >
> >> Based on that assumption I could agree to take Beck's proposal as 
> an alternative ,
> >
> > As you see from the above, your proposal and Becky's are not
> > alternatives, but are mutually independent lines of argument.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > A
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Sullivan
> > ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *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 <http://heritage.org/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> > 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 
> <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

-- 

Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987

CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.

---
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/20160202/1f4d2096/attachment-0001.html>