[CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
Greg Shatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Mon Feb 22 01:05:59 UTC 2016
My responses are inline below.
Greg
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Minority Statement
>
> Dear All,
>
> I have read and read the Minority Statement made by A GAC MEMBERS in CCWG
> which is now supported by 11 other governments.
>
It's worth noting that the other GAC members in the CCWG have not
supported this Minority Statement, so it remains just that -- a minority
statement.
Have you read the Minority Statement made by a GNSO Member in CCWG (Robin
Gross) which is now supported by a number of other stakeholders? We should
not emphasize one Minority Statement over another.
> There serval messages in that Statement
>
> GAC Situation at this very moment
>
> 1.
>
> In future only a full Consensus Advice in the absence of any formal
> objection would be considered by the Board which is quite different from
> existing situation . This make it very probable that as of the date of the
> transition coming in to force , *NO* *MORE GAC ADVICE WOULD BE
> POSSIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE Board due to the fact that, no matter how
> much efforts be made by 154 existing GAC Members, one single Government
> on any ground as it so wishes could block that* Advice not to become
> eligible for consideration by the Board. This is a new working method
> that enshrining a clear VETO to null out efforts of the rest of the GAC
> members in this regard. This is resulted from the proposed ST18
>
> This is not a new working method. This is not quite different from the
existing situation. It is the current and longstanding working method of
the GAC.
You seem to think that the Proposal says GAC advice won't even be
considered by the Board unless it is full consensus Advice. However, that
is simply not true. The GAC can provide advice that is not full consensus
advice, and the Board will still have to "duly take into account" that
advice. But, if it's full consensus advice (as all GAC advice has been to
date), the Board will be required to consult with the GAC and try to reach
a mutually acceptable solution if the Board votes to act inconsistently
with that advice -- *and that vote will now require a supermajority, thanks
to the new Proposal*.
So, there is no real change, except that if the GAC decides to offer
non-full-consensus advice, it will not get all of the deference accorded to
full-consensus advice. However, if the GAC sticks with the status quo
(full consensus advice), then its advice will be treated with even *greater*
deference, due to the newly-acquired supermajority vote.
In other words, if the GAC continues to do what it has always done, its
advice will be even harder for the Board to reject. There's no reason that
this would result in "no more GAC advice".
(If this is an implicit plea to require the Board to give the same
deferential treatment to non-full-consensus advice as it does to full
consensus advice, that is an absolute non-starter.)
> *Consequently the so-called special privilege repeatedly referred to by
> others would in fact very rarely happens*
>
As noted above, there is every reason to believe that the special
privilege will occur as often as it happens now, which is virtually every
time the GAC acts.
>
> 1.
>
> The 2/3 threshold for the rejection of the GAC Advice by the Board was
> proposed but was not accepted unless the existing Simple Majority is
> retained However, if instead of either of Simple Majority a 60%
> threshold is taken, it should be combined with the so-called *CARE-OUT
> CONCEPT* .This implies that on the one hand the probability of having
> GAC advice is limited to the most lowest level , almost zero probability
> based on the argument mentioned in 1) above ,however, even if on a
> rare care there would be a GAC Advice with full consensus, that
> advice may be rejected by 60% of the Board’s Member
>
> The combination of the 60% supermajority threshold and the carve-out is
what has been proposed. I'm not certain of the rest of your point,
especially since there's no basis for the claim that GAC advice will be any
rarer than it is now.
>
> 1.
>
> 2.
>
> Should the Board agrees to the Initial (very improbable occurrence of
> GAC Advice), or if the initial advice is rejected but then was accepted as
> results of negotiation of the Board with GAC any one in the community could
> invoke IRP or just simply make a petition to recall the entire Board with
> only 3 SO/AC in favour excluding by alleging that Board acceptance of
> Advice was inconsistent with its mission or Bylaws, or Article of
> Incorporation. As results of application of so-called carve-out
> approach/concept GAC would excluded to exercise its legitimate right
> to participate in the decision making and defend the case
>
> Again, this is an incorrect understanding of the proposal. Under the
carve-out, the GAC will have every right to make it's case and to
participate in every aspect of the escalation process -- except the
decisional moment.
>
> 1.
>
> These unfavorable situation does not exist for any SO and AC at al
>
> Other SO/ACs do not have the same privileged position as the GAC. If
anything, that privileged position is strengthened by the Proposal, given
the 60% supermajority. Depriving the GAC of its "second bite at the apple"
is a small counterbalance to this privileged position.
>
> 1.
>
> in view of the above GAC has lost the battle in three DIFFERENT
> fronts
>
> This score-keeping is incorrect (although I reject the idea that this
should be cast as a "battle" between the GAC and other stakeholders). The
GAC has won its supermajority vote battle. The GAC members signing on to
the Minority Statement may believe the GAC has lost its (potential) ability
to offer non-full-consensus advice and have it treated the same as
full-consensus-advice, but I would hardly count that as a loss, since the
likelihood of such a change is fairly low (and would likely have engendered
a multistakeholder debate very much like the one we have had for many
months). As far as current activities go, the GAC has lost nothing. The
carve-out may be seen as a "loss" (although I prefer to think of it as a
compromise, or an adjustment) and the less-privileged position that
non-consensus advice will enjoy may also be seen as a loss, but these are
balanced by the "win" of the supermajority vote.
>
> 1.
>
>
> *6 Some other communities said that *in exchange of what GAC lost
> ,it has gained the ability to exercise the community power and become a
> decisional making community in some areas.
>
> 7 Such empowerment which did not exist for any SO/AC now is
> given to every SOs /ACs
>
> 8 That is not totally correct due to the following
>
> 8.1 Some of the power is now waived as results of application of
> so-called Carve-out
>
> 8.2 GAC has not decided and may never decide to exercise those
> powers atall,
>
The GAC's decisional power is only waived in very specific instances and
only to a specific extent (decision-making); in every other case, the GAC's
ability to participate is completely unfettered. If the GAC does not
decide to exercise its decisional powers, then the whole issue of the
"carve-out" is moot. In any event, the GAC will have the capacity to
exercise those powers whenever it wants to.
9. In view of the above, there is a need to give a fresh look
> and reconsider the situation.
>
I don't see anything in the above, once certain misunderstandings are
clarified, that gives rise to the need for a fresh look and reconsideration
of the situation.
> 10. Based on the above understanding from the Minority Statement, wouldn’t
> be possible that the utmost efforts be made to find a win-win situation for
> every SO/AC?
>
I think we have a win-win in the current proposal. Every side of the
equation may want a bigger win, but that's the essence of compromise and
consensus.
> 11. Any of us is subject to make a mistake or misconception. The
> important issue is to duly correct the mistake .
>
I don't see the current proposal as a mistake. The only mistakes I see
here are fundamental misunderstandings of the proposal.
> Never is late. There is always an opportunity to remedy the problem.
>
> However, it requires good will, spirit of collaboration, mutual
> understanding and freindly and healthy enviroment for resolution of the
> problem
>
> *Pelasse kindly be friendly and kindly avoid demonstrating any emotion and
> fully respect the IVCANN ETHIC *
>
> *You may disagree or agree but pls avoid and offensive message *
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss
>
> 2016-02-21 20:58 GMT+01:00 Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>:
>
>> All,
>> Eberhard is free to express his views on the co-chairs. We all have our
>> views.
>>
>> Let me just be clear:
>>
>> We have described and summarized the current situation with our
>> statement. We have not reopened a discussion nor predetermined the outcome
>> of such discusion.
>>
>> Given the situation, there are multiple options for the group to consider
>> and to proceed on. These options will have different (potential)
>> consequences and we did not and do not deem it appropriate for the
>> co-chairs to make such determination without consulting with the CCWG. This
>> consultation will take place on Tuesday.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Thomas Rickert
>>
>> ---
>> rickert.net
>>
>>
>> Am 21.02.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig <
>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>:
>>
>> I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal
>> characterization of the Co-Chairs). But he is completely right that having
>> declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be
>> reopened is not good management.
>>
>>
>>
>> For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will
>> push to reopen the following:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) Change from Single Member to Single Designator
>>
>> 2) GAC advice gets a 60% threshold
>>
>> 3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all
>>
>>
>>
>> All of those are things that I’m unhappy with. So if the Board gets to
>> intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the
>> timeline), let’s just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we?
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul Rosenzweig
>>
>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>> <paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
>>
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>>
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>>
>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>>
>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
>>
>> Link to my PGP Key
>> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>
>>
>> <image001.png>
>> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* epilisse at gmail.com [mailto:epilisse at gmail.com
>> <epilisse at gmail.com>]
>> *Sent:* Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM
>> *To:* CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>> *Cc:* Lisse Eberhard <directors at omadhina.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would
>> then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting.
>>
>> In any case let me place the current state on the record:
>>
>> Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or
>> (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly.
>>
>> But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it
>> doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather)
>> and be done with it.
>>
>> These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced
>> professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a
>> living.
>>
>> Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and
>> very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what
>> we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot
>> down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating
>> object and add minority statement.
>>
>> In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to
>> anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority
>> Statement and we need a new time line.
>>
>> Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but
>> that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the
>> Chartering Organizations sort out this mess.
>>
>>
>> el
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini
>>
>>
>> On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>, wrote:
>>
>> +2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be
>> extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather
>> than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are
>> free to return to our former positions.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160221/f728f2b4/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list