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

Mueller, Milton L milton at gatech.edu
Fri Jan 29 21:10:23 UTC 2016 

> -----Original Message-----
> I do not believe that the Board has an affirmative obligation to sit down with
> any other SO or AC to find a “mutually acceptable solution” to anything
> 

This is more than a "belief," Becky, it is the reality. GAC advice has a special, stronger status - especially because it usually comes AFTER an SO has gone through the laborious process of developing consensus policy. I might also add that the ASO and ccNSO cannot and do not offer "advice" about GNSO-made policies, and vice-versa. 

GAC cannot have it both ways. That is, it cannot pretend that it is "just another AC/SO" when it comes to board votes, while at the same time enjoying the by-law status that allows it to hold the entire policy making process hostage while the board and it "reach a mutually acceptable solution." 

--MM

> On 1/29/16, 4:00 PM, "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch"
> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
> 
> >A special status which is (with the 2/3) similar to the status currently
> >accorded to GNSO (PDP and Guidance Procedure) and CCNSO.
> >
> >Best
> >
> >Jorge
> >
> >Von meinem iPhone gesendet
> >
> >> Am 29.01.2016 um 21:20 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>:
> >>
> >> Jorge, I don¹t understand the concept of neutral application given the
> >> fact that the GAC has a special status that other SO/ACs don¹t have
> >>(Board
> >> must engage in effort to find a mutually acceptable solution regarding
> >>GAC
> >> Advice)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> J. Beckwith Burr
> >> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy
> >> General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
> >> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
> >> Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz
> >> <http://www.neustar.biz>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/29/16, 3:08 PM, "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch"
> >> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Would that be applicable in SO/AC-neutral terms?
> >>>
> >>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
> >>>
> >>> Am 29.01.2016 um 21:06 schrieb Burr, Becky
> >>> <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>:
> >>>
> >>> I have a proposal for discussion.
> >>>
> >>> Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only
> >>> consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission.  What if we accept
> >>>the
> >>> 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a
> >>> decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power
> >>> designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.  In
> >>>other
> >>> words, the GAC  would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs
> >>> objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s
> >>> implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s
> >>> Mission.
> >>>
> >>> I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might
> >>> otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the
> >>>2/3rds
> >>> rejection threshold.
> >>>
> >>> Just a thought -
> >>> J. Beckwith Burr
> >>> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
> >>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
> >>> Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 /
> >>> neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
> >>>
> >>> From: Greg Shatan
> >>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> >>> Date: Friday, January 29, 2016 at 2:38 PM
> >>> To: "Mueller, Milton L"
> <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
> >>> Cc: Accountability Community
> >>>
> >>><accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-
> co
> >>>mm
> >>> unity at icann.org>>
> >>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold,
> GAC
> >>> consensus, and finishing
> >>>
> >>> 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, ³is there any affirmative
> >>>support
> >>> for the 2/3 threshold?² outside the GAC is clearly no.
> >>>
> >>> From:
> >>>
> >>>accountability-cross-community-
> bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-c
> >>>ro
> >>> ss-community-bounces at icann.org>
> >>>
> >>>[mailto:accountability-cross-community-
> bounces at icann.org<mailto:accounta
> >>>bi
> >>> lity-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-
> com
> >>>mu
> >>> nity 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-Com
> >>>mu
> >>> nity at icann.org>
> >>>
> >>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
> >>>n_
> >>>
> >>>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-
> g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
> >>>lU
> >>>
> >>>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKO
> ghNjATPghujBr31
> >>>se
> >>>
> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V
> _-SJk&e=
> >>>
> >>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__mm.icann.org_mailm
> >>>an
> >>>
> >>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-
> 2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
> >>>_l
> >>>
> >>>ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPee
> S727VSPyw6EopaZ
> >>>qi
> >>>
> >>>SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZY
> QvTaptkRI&e=>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>>
> >>>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-
> Cross-Com
> >>>mu
> >>> nity at icann.org>
> >>>
> >>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
> >>>n_
> >>>
> >>>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-
> g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
> >>>lU
> >>>
> >>>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKO
> ghNjATPghujBr31
> >>>se
> >>>
> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V
> _-SJk&e=
> >>>
> >>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__mm.icann.org_mailm
> >>>an
> >>>
> >>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-
> 2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
> >>>_l
> >>>
> >>>ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPee
> S727VSPyw6EopaZ
> >>>qi
> >>>
> >>>SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZY
> QvTaptkRI&e=>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>>
> >>>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-
> Cross-Com
> >>>mu
> >>> nity at icann.org>
> >>>
> >>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
> >>>n_
> >>>
> >>>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-
> g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
> >>>lU
> >>>
> >>>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKO
> ghNjATPghujBr31
> >>>se
> >>>
> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V
> _-SJk&e=
> >>>
> >>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__mm.icann.org_mailm
> >>>an
> >>>
> >>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-
> 2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
> >>>_l
> >>>
> >>>ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPee
> S727VSPyw6EopaZ
> >>>qi
> >>>
> >>>SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZY
> QvTaptkRI&e=>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>>
> >>>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-
> Cross-Com
> >>>mu
> >>> nity at icann.org>
> >>>
> >>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
> >>>n_
> >>>
> >>>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-
> g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
> >>>lU
> >>>
> >>>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKO
> ghNjATPghujBr31
> >>>se
> >>>
> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V
> _-SJk&e=
> >>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list