[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Fri Jan 29 20:44:28 UTC 2016
Hi,
It may be a question that misrepresents the process.
When it comes to finding consensus, acceptance and a willingness to
speak out for something is an affirmation.
You can consider my view point as an affirmation if those words need to
be used. I think the compromise especially because it includes a
commitment to retain the current definition of GAC consensus, and NTIA
requirement, is a good thing. I think trading 1/2 for 2/3, the
equivalent used by the Board to deny a recommendation (a synonym of
advice) is an irrelevant trade off. Or rather I _affirm_ that i think
this is good.
I would also say that in terms of most all of the issues in the current
draft that we have compromised on, at best I accept them and any
willingness to affirm them is based on that acceptance.
avri
On 29-Jan-16 14:38, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Milton,
>
> I agree with your assessment of the situation, and I think you are
> likely correct about the answer to my question. I wanted to see if I
> had overlooked positive support for the 2/3 majority as such. It
> appears that (subject to further responses) I have not.
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu
> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:
>
> Greg:
>
> It was clear from the earlier (pre-transition) process that there
> was virtually no positive support outside GAC for the proposition
> that the board could only reject its advice with a 2/3 majority.
> There was, in fact, overwhelming opposition to the 2/3 threshold.
>
> Insofar as that idea gained acceptance (not support), it was
> perceived as a compromise that would help the GAC to accept a
> requirement that it continue to act on the basis of UN consensus.
>
>
>
> So I think the answer to your question, “is there any affirmative
> support for the 2/3 threshold?” outside the GAC is clearly no.
>
>
>
> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Friday, January 29, 2016 11:58 AM
> *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
> <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold,
> GAC consensus, and finishing
>
>
>
> Alan,
>
>
>
> I think you misunderstand the question. Of course ALAC has
> decided to join a position supported by the bulk of the other
> participants, even where it did not really agree with that
> position. Every stakeholder and stakeholder structure has done
> that, here (and in every other WG, I assume), to avoid being an
> outlier and to honor the building of consensus. This is the usual
> move at some point in the consensus-building process, when dealing
> with a position that has broad multistakeholder support.
>
>
>
> But this virtually always starts with a position that already has
> significant multistakeholder support.
>
>
>
> I am honestly unclear whether the 2/3 proposal, on its own, has
> broad multistakeholder support. I could jump to conclusions, but
> I prefer not to. Hence the question, which I think is quite
> relevant. First, if I go back to my constituency and tell them
> that we are the outlier and this has broad multistakeholder
> support, that may be persuasive to some of them, committed as we
> are to consensus-driven processes. Second, I think it is relevant
> to understand the context of this particular position, isolated
> from discussions of the value of compromise and other such things.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Alan Greenberg
> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>> wrote:
>
> 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
> <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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list