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

Burr, Becky Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
Fri Jan 29 21:28:08 UTC 2016 

No.  I am suggesting specifically that the GAC could not act to block
exercise of a community power to challenge the Board’s implementation of
GAC Advice.   ICANN’s obligations with respect to GAC Advice are unique
and exceptional in the ICANN context.  Some members of the GAC are looking
to make it even more exceptional/harder to resist (by raising the standard
to 2/3rds).  I am proposing a specific tool to balance the increased
standard in the GAC context, which is a material change in the status quo.
All it does is preserve the ability of the community to challenge the
Board’s handling of that Advice.

You can say that it is not neutral Jorge, but I believe you are comparing
apples and oranges.


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, 4:12 PM, "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch"
<Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

>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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=5RzyfDxhmtzWKYnGR8H
>>i4gTAd8BXNqnecqgLpftf2XY&s=8btQ4OQ82PIUedi5SX597A3y44lb8FYSZIHhn6RbuLs&e=
>> 
>>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list