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

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Fri Jan 29 21:25:45 UTC 2016


I do not know what  some people talking about in saying" talking about when
saying "That said, the RySG position on Recommendation 11 and the 2/3
threshold has turned out to be a minority view in the GNSO."
There is not information on what was the basis for minority and majority in
GNSO
SOME OTHER PEOPLE TAKE THEMSLEF AS CHAIR AND ASKIN " WHO ELSE SUPPORT THE
2/3 ????This question is irrelevant
Some other people said , did GAC reach consensus on the need to have 2/3
MAJORITY
THE ANSWER IS YES.
There are two mutually exclusinve condition
1. st 18
2. Simple majority
We can not have both
either ST18  with 2/3
Or Simple majority without ST 18
NO PAINTING THE OPTIONS
Regards
Kavouss

2016-01-29 22:10 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>:

> > -----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=
> > >>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160129/2cafcd76/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list