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

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Fri Jan 29 21:33:59 UTC 2016


Dear All,
I categorically disagree that GAC has ever interferened with any thing.
Regards
Kavouss

2016-01-29 22:29 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>:

> Jorge
>
> To answer your question directly -- No.  The principle is not as you
> suggest
> it is, but rather an attempt to accommodate concerns about the unique
> position of the GAC.  Since you don't (it seems) accept the uniqueness of
> the GAC's advice process you, naturally, misread the principle.
>
> If the GAC were to agree to all of the preliminary steps identified for a
> PDP (http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/31379/)  before it issued advice I
> would
> gladly acknowledge equivalence in voting within the EC to overturn that
> advicce.  The GAC can't of course (nor should it).
>
> All the best
> 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 4:12 PM
> To: paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> Cc: Becky.Burr at neustar.biz; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC
> consensus, and finishing
>
> 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-cros
> >>> s
> >>> -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:accountabili
> >>> t
> >>> y-cro
> >>> ss-community-bounces at icann.org>
> >>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:acco
> >>> u 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_ma
> >>> i
> >>> lman_
> >>> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD
> >>> A
> >>> LC_lU
> >>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghuj
> >>> B
> >>> r31se
> >>> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&
> >>> e
> >>> =
> >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m
> >>> a
> >>> ilman
> >>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETe
> >>> D
> >>> ALC_l
> >>> ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6E
> >>> o
> >>> 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_ma
> >>> i
> >>> lman_
> >>> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD
> >>> A
> >>> LC_lU
> >>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghuj
> >>> B
> >>> r31se
> >>> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&
> >>> e
> >>> =
> >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m
> >>> a
> >>> ilman
> >>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETe
> >>> D
> >>> ALC_l
> >>> ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6E
> >>> o
> >>> 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_ma
> >>> i
> >>> lman_
> >>> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD
> >>> A
> >>> LC_lU
> >>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghuj
> >>> B
> >>> r31se
> >>> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&
> >>> e
> >>> =
> >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m
> >>> a
> >>> ilman
> >>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETe
> >>> D
> >>> ALC_l
> >>> ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6E
> >>> o
> >>> 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_ma
> >>> i
> >>> lman_
> >>> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD
> >>> A
> >>> LC_lU
> >>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghuj
> >>> B
> >>> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c2fae662/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list