[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Fri Jan 29 17:45:14 UTC 2016
You answered the question I expressly said I wasn't asking -- "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 think you *almost* answered the question I did ask, when you said " Not
because I think it is a great idea, though I do not think it is a bad idea
either." So it seems you do not affirmatively support the concept as such.
I asked the question I asked not because I am immune to the value of
compromise or ignorant of the many ways that consensus is achieved.
Rather, I asked it because I feel that the "base of support" for this
proposal is unclear and it is relevant to our ability to move forward, one
way or the other.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>
> Greg, all,
> Although I agree with Alan that it is probably not the right question,
> I’ll answer it. And my answer is: Yes, I do support the 2/3 threshold. Not
> because I think it is a great idea, though I do not think it is a bad idea
> No, my affirmative support is based on the fact that this is part of a
> negotiation, a compromise, where –if we do not want to get stuck in our
> trenches for the remainder of time- parties will have to move, concede some
> to the other parties.
> So the problem it solves is the present deadlock, it is needed for a
> successful transition, supported by the GAC. And I do not believe in
> conspiracy thinking; the risk is minimal. We already have accepted similar
> and larger risks.
> I have worked in many countries and have learnt both that it’s dangerous
> to alienate governments and that it can be very productive to work with
> them in a strategically clever way. When SIDN voluntarily signed a
> convenant with the Dutch government under my lead in 2008, many of my
> international peers told me I was crazy to allow government involvement. It
> would be the beginning of a process that would ultimately lead to
> government control/takeover. I can now easily prove them wrong.
> Self-regulation prevailed and .nl is one of the most successful, open,
> unregulated and safest ccTLDs.
> What puzzles me (not intending to accuse anybody) is that is seems that
> many are saying that by agreeing to this, we would be ceding to
> governments, which we should not do. And one of the arguments they use, is
> that the US government would never agree to this and the transition would
> So we can yield to one government (without protesting) as long as it is
> the US? It seems that this argument is mainly used by American nationals.
> Probably because the logic is less obvious to those from other countries.
> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> Date: vrijdag 29 januari 2016 00:24
> To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC
> consensus, and finishing
> 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
> 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.
> [cross-posts to GAC list removed]
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <
> 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
>> 2016-01-28 23:45 GMT+01:00 Andrew Sullivan <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,
>>> Andrew Sullivan
>>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community