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

Robin Gross robin at ipjustice.org
Fri Jan 29 19:56:05 UTC 2016


I have been asking myself the same question, Greg, and I think it is an important one.  Exactly who wants this 2/3 rule?  The GAC hasn’t said that it wants it.  The GNSO has said it is strongly opposed to it.  Others don’t seem to care much one way or another.  So where is the push to do this coming from?  Which SO-AC has said this is a “die in a ditch” issue for it and so therefore we must march forward in "compromise”?  How did this even get into our proposal in the first place?  It isn’t too late to fix this, so let’s deal with it before we are put in the spotlight and asked to explain how did we let it happen?

Robin

> On Jan 28, 2016, at 3:24 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> 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 <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 <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 <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/20160129/543337dd/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list