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

[Jeff Neuman]

Kavouss,

I am a pretty simple person.  I am not saying it should be win lose or lose lose.  I just would like to see the GAC (or any group) clearly state what a win win situation would be in their minds.  The GAC as a group has not stated clearly what that would be.  We shouldn't be in a position of having to guess.  The GNSO statements have been clear.  The Board statements have been clear. The ALAC statements have been clear.  I would love for the GAC statement to be just as clear and state something like what I think some GAC members on this list is stating, namely, "we support the definition of consensus as stated in the draft, but only if the 2/3 threshold is adopted." (If that is what they mean). I just have never seen that stated.

Thanks.

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 28, 2016, at 10:54 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:

GAC did not formally reject the Rec 11 in announcing that " no consensus is reached " GNSO and its spokemen push for their objection, GAC must formally reject the Recommendation as currently GAC lost o-1 because of Stress Test 18 ,if such ST remains and 2/ 3 supermajority becomes Simple Majority then GAC would loose o-2 .That is not fair .There should not win loose against GAC,
WIN-WIN YES, loose-loose yes ,for every body BUT NOT LOOSE FOR gac and win for the others .
THAT IS NOT FAIR
Kavouss

2016-01-28 23:45 GMT+01:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>>:
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:26:54PM +0000, Jeff Neuman wrote:
> Where in writing has the GAC stated that it will reject the accountability proposal of the 2/3 threshold is not in there.

I didn't intend to suggest that they'd stated that in writing, but
rather to suggest that the GAC had consensus around the 2/3 number.
But this'll teach me to go from memory, because I was relying on my
recollection of the Dublin communiqé.  In fact it does not exactly say
that the GAC has consensus about the 2/3 threshold, so I'm wrong.

I still believe that the compromise position is an effective way
forward that actually gives no additional real power to the GAC
(because of the new Empowered Community) while yet granting the 2/3
number that many seem to think is important.  But the claim in favour
of 2/3 is indeed weaker given the GAC's stated positions.

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160128/507fbbef/attachment.html>