[CCWG-ACCT] Negotiation 101

Wed Feb 17 09:11:17 UTC 2016

Why are you surprised? Standard negotiation tactics. 'Ask for more!'

And now we've agreed on the price and the specification of the car, I'll 
have a full tank of gas and a set of floor mats as well, please.

Nigel
PS: I'd have been surprised if the Board DIDN'T do this-- it would be 
making me suspicious as to what I'd missed.

On 17/02/16 08:52, Edward Morris wrote:
> Brett, it appears to me that you are correct. The switch from the
> membership model left us dependent upon spilling the Board, or parts of
> it, as the ultimate community power. Now, following weeks of proper
> consideration where the Board did not raise this concern, they are
> making a last minute end run around the process attempting to raise the
> threshold for board spillage in those areas where the issue for spillage
> involves consensus Board advice that is not within the scope of an IRP.
>
> I note Becky Burr's comments on this issue:
>
>
> 'If the community seeks to dump the Board based on its implementation of
> GAC Advice, but where the justification for the use of this community
> power is something other than a violation of the Bylaws or Articles,
> then, in my view, the lower threshold should apply and there should be
> no obligation to file an IRP (which, presumably, would be dismissed on
> standing grounds).'
>
> Many members of the CCWG, including myself, have indicated agreement
> with Becky's view.
>
> Can somebody point to me where this limitation on community power has
> been proposed, discussed and agreed by the community? Can someone show
> me where the two readings have been held on this issue?
>
> If not then this is a process violation and I will be forced to ask the
> NCSG policy committee to file a complaint with the Office of the
> Ombudsman. I don't believe the community has or will agree to this
> limitation of the GAC carve out if given a chance to examine it and
> weigh in on
> the matter. It sorrows me that the Board is pushing this last minute
> change that threatens the ongoing status of our fine Proposal. Of
> course, given the timing this proposal could and should placed in the
> Supplemental as a Minority Statement, nothing more,
>
> Best,
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 17 Feb 2016, at 02:49, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org
>> <mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Well, this is clear and it is what I was concerned about.
>>
>> Essentially, the Board is insisting in a 4 SOAC threshold for spilling
>> the Board in all circumstances except when it is defying an IRP ruling
>> against a decision based on consensus GAC advice.  It is a significant
>> change making it more difficult for the EC to exercise its ultimate
>> enforcement power.
>>
>> Moreover, it seems likely that, if the GAC decides not to participate
>> in the EC as a full decisions like participant, and the thresholds are
>> adjusted, the Board would insist on a unanimous 4 SOAC threshold to
>> spill the Board.
>>
>> Am I wrong?
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> 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 <x-apple-data-detectors://3/1>
>> Washington, DC 20002 <x-apple-data-detectors://3/1>
>> 202-608-6097 <tel:202-608-6097>
>> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/><http://heritage.org/>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
>> <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au><mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>>
>> Date: February 16, 2016 at 8:28:04 PM EST
>> To: Accountability Cross Community
>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on Board removal in the
>> context of GAC advice
>>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> To reiterate the Board's position in the case of the carve out
>> compromise involving GAC advice, the Board can agree to reducing the
>> threshold for Board removal to three SOs or ACs, with no more than one
>> objecting, when there was an IRP finding against the Board regarding
>> the acceptance of GAC advice.
>>
>> For all other attempts to remove the full ICANN Board, the Board does
>> not support lowering the threshold below four SOs or ACs, with no more
>> than one objecting. . The power to spill the Board would remain
>> available as contemplated within the CCWG's third draft proposal.
>>
>> For the avoidance of doubt, if the Board accepts GAC advice within the
>> limitations of ICANN's mission and bylaws, an IRP panel confirms that
>> is the case, and the community simply dislikes the GAC advice - then
>> the threshold of 4 SOs and ACs continues to apply. If the GAC is
>> excluded from participating then this would mean that the ccNSO, GNSO,
>> ASO and ALAC would need to agree that the Board should be removed.
>>
>> Our view is that past cases relating to disagreement on GAC advice
>> have been focussed on concerns that ICANN is exceeding its mission or
>> is not following its processes. The IRP is the most appropriate
>> vehicle to resolve disputes in this area. In general the Board
>> consults widely with the whole community before accepting the advice
>> from any one part of the community. We think a situation where the
>> community broadly disagrees with an action the Board has taken that is
>> within the mission and bylaws is likely to be extremely rare, and the
>> threshold of 4 SOs and ACs is still appropriate in that scenario if
>> the community simply dislikes the Board's decision.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bruce Tonkin
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3Chttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3E>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 17 Feb 2016, at 03:43, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org
> <mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>> wrote:
>
>> Jordan,
>>
>> The way I read it, the Board is insisting on a 4 SOAC threshold for
>> spilling the Board in all circumstances except when it is specifically
>> defying an IRP ruling against a decision based on consensus GAC advice.
>>
>> In other words, if the community wants to spill the Board based on its
>> implementation of GAC Advice, but where the justification for the use
>> of this community power is something other than a violation of the
>> Bylaws or Articles, then the Board says that the 4 SOAC threshold
>> should apply rather than the 3 SOAC threshold currently proposed under
>> the GAC carve out.  If this read is wrong, please let me know how.
>>
>> This may be acceptable to the CCWG, but let's not pretend that it is
>> some minor tweak. As Becky noted, this would materially narrow the
>> spill the Board power by making it harder to exercise.
>>
>> I agree that this situation should rarely arise. The community is
>> populated by serious people and the Board should not fear that these
>> powers will be exercised lightly. But they also need to be reasonably
>> available if necessary. That is why we resisted setting the thresholds
>> at levels requiring unanimous support in the first place. In my
>> opinion, the Board has not offered a compelling reason for their
>> proposed change.
>>
>> If the Board is needs some assurance, then Becky's narrower
>> interpretation should be sufficient.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Brett
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> 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><http://heritage.org/>
>>
>> On Feb 16, 2016, at 10:02 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>> <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz><mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:
>>
>> Robin, I don't think that is what is being proposed.
>>
>> All that is being discussed is in relation to the GAC carveout, where
>> we had earlier agreed that where there was a challenge to the Board's
>> implementation of GAC advice, GAC couldn't also be a decisional
>> participant in any move to recall the Board.
>>
>> That got added to by including a lower thresholds in that situation,
>> to avoid a unanimity requirement.
>>
>> Then it got qualified by noting that if there had been an IRP, etc etc.
>>
>> But what is not being proposed, as I understand it, is any change to
>> the general power to recall the ICANN Board or the thresholds to
>> operate it.
>>
>> I would not support any such changes.
>>
>>
>> cheers
>> Jordan
>>
>>
>> On 17 February 2016 at 15:55, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org><mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>> The CCWG never discussed, let alone agreed to narrow the grounds for
>> spilling the board to only those grounds for an IRP as the board
>> suddenly proposes.  We cannot have such a significant narrowing of our
>> mechanisms at the hour 23:59.  The board should have proposed this
>> curtailment months ago, when the issue could have been fairly
>> considered.  But the board can’t slip it in at this impossibly late hour.
>>
>> Robin
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 16, 2016, at 5:28 PM, Bruce Tonkin
>> <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
>> <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au><mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> To reiterate the Board's position in the case of the carve out
>> compromise involving GAC advice, the Board can agree to reducing the
>> threshold for Board removal to three SOs or ACs, with no more than one
>> objecting, when there was an IRP finding against the Board regarding
>> the acceptance of GAC advice.
>>
>> For all other attempts to remove the full ICANN Board, the Board does
>> not support lowering the threshold below four SOs or ACs, with no more
>> than one objecting.  .  The power to spill the Board would remain
>> available as contemplated within the CCWG's third draft proposal.
>>
>> For the avoidance of doubt, if the Board accepts GAC advice within the
>> limitations of ICANN's mission and bylaws, an IRP panel confirms that
>> is the case, and the community simply dislikes the GAC advice - then
>> the threshold of 4 SOs and ACs continues to apply.   If the GAC is
>> excluded from participating then this would mean that the ccNSO, GNSO,
>> ASO and ALAC would need to agree that the Board should be removed.
>>
>> Our view is that past cases relating to disagreement on GAC advice
>> have been focussed on concerns that ICANN is exceeding its mission or
>> is not following its processes.   The IRP is the most appropriate
>> vehicle to resolve disputes in this area.   In general the Board
>> consults widely with the whole community before accepting the advice
>> from any one part of the community.    We think a situation where the
>> community broadly disagrees with an action the Board has taken that is
>> within the mission and bylaws is likely to be extremely rare, and the
>> threshold of 4 SOs and ACs is still appropriate in that scenario if
>> the community simply dislikes the Board's decision.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bruce Tonkin
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<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><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jordan Carter
>>
>> Chief Executive
>> InternetNZ - your voice for the Open Internet
>>
>> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
>> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>> <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz><mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>> Skype: jordancarter
>> Web: www.internetnz.nz
>> <http://www.internetnz.nz><http://www.internetnz.nz>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>> 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
>