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

[Alan Greenberg]

Greg,

That is a simple question, but not a particularly 
relevant one in my mind. I and ALAC have accepted 
a LOT of things that we do not believe "is a good 
idea, or enhances ICANN's accountability, or 
corrects a problem/deficiency in the Bylaws, or 
is needed for the transition". So have other parts of the community.

I would ask the opposite. What is the HARM? The 
overall number of times that GAC advice is 
rejected is small. I find it hard to imagine that 
there will be any substantive difference in 
outcomes in the future with the two alternatives. 
If people want to die in the ditch (so to speak) 
over the difference, I guess that is what will happen.

Alan

At 28/01/2016 06:24 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>I'd like to ask a simple question.
>
>Aside from members of the GAC, is there any 
>affirmative support for the 2/3 threshold?  In 
>other words, does any member or participant 
>think that this is a good idea, or enhances 
>ICANN's accountability, or corrects a 
>problem/deficiency in the Bylaws, or is needed 
>for the transition? How about any chartering 
>organization or constituent part of a chartering organization?
>
>I'm not asking about the value of compromise, or 
>the effect (or lack thereof) of the change, or 
>whether it's something you can live with.  I'm 
>asking about affirmative support.
>
>Greg
>
>[cross-posts to GAC list removed]
>
>On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh 
><<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>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 
><<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>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
><mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>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/20160128/f10c9314/attachment-0001.html>