[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Fri Jan 29 21:12:15 UTC 2016
Well the principle put forward by Becky, as I understand it, is to avoid that one sub-entity of ICANN (she focuses on GAC) may block a community IRP brought forward against an action of the Board which is the result of that sub-entities initiative.
Is that principle not applicable to all SO/AC?
why?
regards
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
> Am 29.01.2016 um 22:06 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>:
>
> With respect Jorge, you keep saying that but it simply isn't true. As Keith
> described in some detail on the last call (and in the chat) the gNSO
> provisions are quite different.
>
> Your argument is, inherently, logically inconsistent. ON the one hand,
> because governments "represent their citizens" (many of them don't, but
> let's leave that aside) their advice deserves special consideration, but
> because they are an AC they should be treated like other ACs or (here, you
> leap) other SOs. You can't really have it both ways.
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> Link to my PGP Key
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch]
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 4:01 PM
> To: Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
> Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC
> consensus, and finishing
>
> 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
>>> -comm
>>> 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:accountabilit
>>> y-cro
>>> ss-community-bounces at icann.org>
>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accou
>>> ntabi 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-
>>> commu
>>> 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-
>>> Commu
>>> nity at icann.org>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai
>>> lman_
>>> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA
>>> LC_lU
>>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB
>>> r31se
>>> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e
>>> =
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma
>>> ilman
>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD
>>> ALC_l
>>> ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6Eo
>>> paZqi
>>> SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&
>>> e=>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
>>> Commu
>>> nity at icann.org>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai
>>> lman_
>>> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA
>>> LC_lU
>>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB
>>> r31se
>>> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e
>>> =
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma
>>> ilman
>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD
>>> ALC_l
>>> ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6Eo
>>> paZqi
>>> SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&
>>> e=>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
>>> Commu
>>> nity at icann.org>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai
>>> lman_
>>> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA
>>> LC_lU
>>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB
>>> r31se
>>> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e
>>> =
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma
>>> ilman
>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD
>>> ALC_l
>>> ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6Eo
>>> paZqi
>>> SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&
>>> e=>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
>>> Commu
>>> nity at icann.org>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai
>>> lman_
>>> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA
>>> LC_lU
>>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB
>>> r31se
>>> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e
>>> =
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list