[CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out

[Phil Corwin]

Steve:



Some questions regarding this Board input at the 59th minute of the 11th hour (metaphorically speaking):

·         "The Board is against any changes to the long established equilibrium and fairness among the different stakeholders within ICANN." -- Does that mean the Board is opposed to raising the raising the threshold for rejection of GAC advice above majority vote, as that is a change in long established practice (whereas locking in a definition of GAC advice that memorializes its long established practice is not)?

·         " If there is a graceful way to remove this matter from the immediate pressure of the deadline of submitting this proposal and make it a priority matter for either the implementation phase or Work Stream 2, we think there will be a solution which is genuinely good for everyone."-What is the Board suggesting should be removed from the final Recommendations at this very late hour? And how can something be left for the implementation phase if it is removed from the Recommendations, as those involved in Bylaws drafting that is the heart of the implementation phase should have no latitude in introducing any matter that is not part of an approved Recommendation?



Your response would help clarify our understanding of this new Board position.



Best regards, Philip







Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/cell



Twitter: @VlawDC



"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey





-----Original Message-----
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Crocker
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 11:28 AM
To: Mathieu Weill; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Thomas Rickert
Cc: Steve Crocker; Icann-board ICANN; Accountability Community
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out



CCWG Colleagues,



The Board has a serious and continued concern about the issues being raised that may result in the reduction of the GAC's ability to participate in community decision making. This is most noticeable in the question of thresholds for board removal, however this is not an issue about removal or even thresholds, it is one part of the community being (or perceiving that it is being) sidelined. The Board's concerns with this issue are not about Board removal, but about maintaining the balanced multistakeholder model.



The Board is against any changes to the long established equilibrium and fairness among the different stakeholders within ICANN. The Board has long supported a threshold of four participants for Board removal in the ultimate escalation method proposed by the CCWG.  Selecting one portion of the ICANN community and removing them from the equation - just through the ability to say that the community is unhappy with the acceptance of GAC advice that is within ICANN's bylaws - raises significant concerns about how the multistakeholder model, and the ultimate stability of ICANN as an organization, can be maintained. This carved out exception undercuts the established role of governments within the multi stakeholder process, and could introduce new issues with the acceptance of ICANN's model undermining the work of the CCWG.



We understand that there are concerns with this path from within other parts of ICANN community, including members of the GAC and ALAC. The best course, in our opinion, would be a careful and objective discussion of the whole matter of how advice from ALL parties is appropriately considered within ICANN.  If there is a graceful way to remove this matter from the immediate pressure of the deadline of submitting this proposal and make it a priority matter for either the implementation phase or Work Stream 2, we think there will be a solution which is genuinely good for everyone.



We encourage you to share the CCWG's proposal with the Chartering Organizations while the dialog on this outstanding point continues.



Thank you,



Steve Crocker

Chair, ICANN Board of Directors



_______________________________________________

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



-----

No virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>

Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160219/e77a22bd/attachment.html>