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

[Seun Ojedeji]

Good question, actually for some reason I also thought there was something
like that in the charter but I have just gone to look at it again and could
not find it either.

https://community.icann.org/m/mobile.action#page/50823977

Regards
On 28 Jan 2016 10:33 p.m., "Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva" <
pedro.ivo at itamaraty.gov.br> wrote:

> Dear Keith,
>
> >>> "My understanding is that the CCWG proposal can be finalized and
> approved with 4 of 5 chartering organizations in support. "
>
> Thanks for sharing your understanding. However, could you point to the
> specific text in the CCWG Charter where this threshold (4 out of 5) is
> defined? I couldn't find it.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Regards,
>
> Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
> Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI)
> Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil
> T: + 55 61 2030-6609
>
> Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
> Division of Information Society (DI)
> Ministry of External Relations - Brazil
> T: + 55 61 2030-6609
>
>
>
> -----Mensagem original-----
> De: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] Em nome de Drazek, Keith
> Enviada em: quinta-feira, 28 de janeiro de 2016 19:05
> Para: Andrew Sullivan; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Assunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC
> consensus, and finishing
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> My understanding is that the CCWG proposal can be finalized and approved
> with 4 of 5 chartering organizations in support. So, a single organization
> in opposition *should* not scuttle the package.
>
> It's unclear to me what happens if one chartering organization is silent
> and another opposed, leaving only 3 in support.  Probably a question for
> the Co-Chairs.
>
> Regards,
> Keith
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew
> Sullivan
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 3:58 PM
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC
> consensus, and finishing
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I was going to make a comment on the call today, but in the interests of
> time I took myself out of the queue.  This note replaces what I wanted to
> say.
>
> For those chartering organizations and individuals that wish to reject the
> compromise, I have a question.  If the proposed compromise position on
> recommendation 11 is rejected, there is a good reason to suppose that at
> least one important part of the community (the GAC) will reject the
> accountability proposal.  That will conceivably scuttle the transition; and
> in the absence of a consensus on the accountability measures, there is no
> reason to suppose we'll get the additional powers that are in the current
> text (incuding the Empowered Community).  Is it worth it to give up those
> additional powers to prevent the 2/3 board threshold, given that the
> additional powers provide a way to foil truly bad decisions anyway?
>
> As I understand things, we are in a trap.  On the one hand, the GAC has
> produced a consensus position that the board must reject GAC advice by a
> supermajority.  And indeed, as things are, the ICANN board has a difficult
> time even under the current arrangements when it decides to reject GAC
> advice.  Yet the GAC is currently free to rearrange its own procedures such
> that it could lower its own threshold for decisions.  Therefore, the
> consensus position of the GAC represents a grave threat to the transition.
> The current state of affairs is in any case not that hot; and the GAC could
> unilaterally make that current state of affairs worse.
>
> The compromise proposal does a few things.  It is true that it increases
> the threshold for the board to reject GAC advice.  But in exchange for
> that, it enshrines the GAC's responsibility to the rest of the ICANN
> community as to how the GAC will reach decisions.  This means that, in
> exchange for the increased threshold -- a threshold that I think will be
> easy to reach regardless of the actual numbers on the board in any case
> that counts -- the GAC is giving up independent control over its
> decision-making procedures when exercising that threshold.  In that way, it
> is actually an improvement of GAC's covenant with the ICANN community.
>
> Moreover, let us suppose that the GAC produced advice that the board
> decided to accept, but the rest of the community found that objectionable.
> In that case, the rest of the community could force the board not to take
> the advice _anyway_, because of the additional accountability measures that
> this CCWG wants to put in place.
>
> The compromise proposal is not perfect -- I too would prefer not to have
> the 2/3 rule -- but one does not expect complete satisfaction from a
> compromise.  And it should be surprising to no-one that it came rather
> late: each side wants something pretty big, and both appear to be dug in.
> This means that each will need to give something up.
> That's what deals look like.  And we need a deal, and soon, because we
> need to move ahead with the IANA transition.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160129/46d0963b/attachment-0001.html>