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

Fri Jan 29 22:36:39 UTC 2016

I am disappointed of hearing some people known positive, constructive,
elsewehere now become so radical and pushing to marginalize GAC in
defending other community rather than looking for solutions
Regards
Kavouss

2016-01-29 23:29 GMT+01:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:

> Thanks for your work here. Keith. I'm not sure folks truly understand how
> strong the opposition does seem to be to 11 within the GNSO.
>
> One aspect of the GNSO comment I feel compelled to highlight is
> our perceived connection between recommendations 1, 10 and 11. I think many
> of us could grudgingly accept the 2/3 threshold override if the GAC agreed
> to remain advisory rather than participatory per recommendation 1, yet a
> special sort of participatory as it also will increase its advisory role
> per 11 while being exempt from the same accountability review processes as
> other SOACs per recommendation 10.
>
> Personally, and I do have a vote on the GNSO Council, if we were to
> reconfigure the proposal so that the GAC does not participate in the
> Community Mechanism per recommendation 1,  I would have little trouble
> finding a way in the spirit of compromise to accepting recommendation 10
> and 11 as written. Similarly, if the GAC were to keep things status quo in
> terms of Bard consideration of its advice and agree to the same
> accountability reviews as are applied to the other SOACs I could, after a
> few drinks, accept recommendation 1 as written.
>
> It's the whole package. A transition where the GAC's advisory status is
> emboldened while it is given new participatory powers,
> including  heretofore nonexistent powers relative to Board composition,
> while at the same time exempting the GAC from the accountability
> requirements of all other SOACs...I'm not sure that will ever be a
> transition I'm going to be able to sign off on. I do hope the linkage,
> however, between 1, 10, 11 might increase the possibility of some sort of
> mutually acceptable compromise that will allow us to go forward on this
> project.
>
> Best,
>
> Edward Morris
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com>
> *Sent*: Friday, January 29, 2016 9:57 PM
> *To*: "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> *Cc*: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>
> *Subject*: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC
> consensus, and finishing
>
> Thanks Jorge.
>
> The GNSO was not in a position to take any position prior to the
> publication of the Version 3 proposal. It has now considered and assessed
> the proposal in its entirety, and has determined there is insufficient
> support across its constituent groups (BC, IPC, ISPCP, NCUC, NPOC, RySG,
> RrSG) for Recommendation 11 as written with the 2/3 threshold. I understand
> your frustration, but these are the facts. My email was intended to ensure
> everyone understands the state of play in the GNSO on this key point. As I
> said separately in another email, the RySG (my SG) has said it can accept
> the 2/3 with the additional criteria, but that is currently a minority
> position in the GNSO.
>
> Regards,
> Keith
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch]
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 4:25 PM
> To: Drazek, Keith
> Cc: gregshatanipc at gmail.com; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC
> consensus, and finishing
>
> Dear Keith
>
> it is a bit akward you would need to concede that you imply that without
> the 2/3 the GNSO would be able to support Rec 11.
>
> It gives an impression as if Rec 11 (without 2/3) would contain anything
> "that would need to be accepted", when as we all know Rec 11 (without 2/3)
> corresponds to 100% of the GNSO starting position.
>
> So there would be any concession. No aspect "in need to be accepted".
>
> Just a 100% win-situation for the GNSO.
>
> I feel during the last week all participating GAC members have been
> constructive, open for the needs expressed by the GNSO, and willing to
> accept all the further clarifications and assurances required by the GNSO
> in order to dissipate any concerns on the agreed drafting for Rec 11.
>
> We just have to look at the record and see how reasonable, rational and
> open for improvements we all have been.
>
> That is why I'm really surprised by thia u-turn, which would strip Rec 11
> of one of the elements which were part of the GAC Dublin consensus and had
> helped to de-escalate this issue within the GAC and within the community at
> large.
>
> A 100% win for one party is no good compromise for a community which is
> obliged to work together and has very sensitive substantial work ahead.
>
> Hope you will understand these well-intentioned arguments and reasonings
>
> regards and with kind regards
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>
> > Am 29.01.2016 um 22:13 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>:
> >
> > With all due respect, Jorge, I was simply updating the group on the
> position of the GNSO as a whole. It is not *my* position, nor is it the
> current position of my SG. Please do not personalize this.
> >
> > Best,
> > Keith
> >
> >
> >> On Jan 29, 2016, at 3:59 PM, "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch" <
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Keith
> >>
> >> if course you would support rec 11 if you strip it of the 2/3, as that
> would equal 100% of your starting position and would not give nothing in
> exchange.
> >>
> >> I feel that the intelligence of colleagues should be treated with due
> respect.
> >>
> >> regards
> >>
> >> Jorge
> >>
> >> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
> >>
> >> Am 29.01.2016 um 21:14 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com
> <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>:
> >>
> >> All, to reiterate what I said during yesterday's CCWG call (reporting
> on the GNSO's deliberations), and to respond to Jorge's characterization of
> the GNSO "partially objecting" to Recommendation 11:
> >>
> >> The GNSO comments (and the individual comments submitted by the GNSO's
> constituent parts) make clear there is majority opposition to the inclusion
> of the 2/3 threshold, particularly in the context of the GAC participating
> as decisional in the community mechanism. The GNSO supports incorporating
> the definition of GAC consensus for Board obligations (absence of formal
> objection) as required by NTIA, but does not support the increase of Board
> obligation to 2/3. If the 2/3 threshold were removed and returned to simple
> majority, the GNSO would support Recommendation 11. So, any "partial
> objection" should be read as, "opposition to 2/3 but support of consensus
> definition."
> >>
> >> Per its procedures, the GNSO will vote on and require a simple majority
> of EACH house (contracted and non-contracted), and there is not majority
> support in EITHER house to agree to Recommendation 11 with the 2/3
> threshold.
> >>
> >> It appears we have one Chartering Organization (GNSO) that will oppose
> Recommendation 11 if it includes the 2/3 threshold. We have another
> Chartering Organization (GAC) that will, by all signals, remain silent. It
> seems we all have a better chance of the CCWG proposal being accepted by
> the Board, NTIA and the US Congress if there are no objections to any of
> the 12 recommendations. Removing the 2/3 threshold accomplishes that.
> >>
> >> Also, as pointed out correctly today by Mike and Paul, NTIA has made it
> clear that the GAC consensus definition language must be included in the
> bylaws for the IANA transition to proceed. There are no chartering
> organizations opposing this inclusion.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Keith
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From:
> >> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountabilit
> >> y-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
> >> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf
> >> Of Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> >> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 1:23 PM
> >> To: gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> >> Cc:
> >> accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-
> >> community at icann.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC
> >> consensus, and finishing
> >>
> >> The logical problem is to pick and chose parts of a package deal and
> ask whether such discrete parts are acceptable or not. This just ignores
> that the deal is composed by its different parts - and logically some
> please and displease differently different parts of the community.
> >>
> >> And as said before, from the chartering orgs there is just one
> partially objecting to this. And the numbers of the public comment period
> speak for themselves in accepting this as a workable compromise.
> >>
> >> regards
> >>
> >> Jorge
> >>
> >> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
> >>
> >> Am 29.01.2016 um 18:46 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>:
> >>
> >> Roelof,
> >>
> >> You answered the question I expressly said I wasn't asking -- "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 think you *almost* answered the question I did ask, when you said "
> Not because I think it is a great idea, though I do not think it is a bad
> idea either." So it seems you do not affirmatively support the concept as
> such.
> >>
> >> I asked the question I asked not because I am immune to the value of
> compromise or ignorant of the many ways that consensus is achieved. Rather,
> I asked it because I feel that the "base of support" for this proposal is
> unclear and it is relevant to our ability to move forward, one way or the
> other.
> >>
> >> Greg
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl
> <mailto:Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl<mailto:
> Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>>> wrote:
> >> Greg, all,
> >>
> >> Although I agree with Alan that it is probably not the right question,
> I'll answer it. And my answer is: Yes, I do support the 2/3 threshold. Not
> because I think it is a great idea, though I do not think it is a bad idea
> either.
> >> No, my affirmative support is based on the fact that this is part of a
> negotiation, a compromise, where -if we do not want to get stuck in our
> trenches for the remainder of time- parties will have to move, concede some
> to the other parties.
> >> So the problem it solves is the present deadlock, it is needed for a
> successful transition, supported by the GAC. And I do not believe in
> conspiracy thinking; the risk is minimal. We already have accepted similar
> and larger risks.
> >>
> >> I have worked in many countries and have learnt both that it's
> dangerous to alienate governments and that it can be very productive to
> work with them in a strategically clever way. When SIDN voluntarily signed
> a convenant with the Dutch government under my lead in 2008, many of my
> international peers told me I was crazy to allow government involvement. It
> would be the beginning of a process that would ultimately lead to
> government control/takeover. I can now easily prove them wrong.
> Self-regulation prevailed and .nl is one of the most successful, open,
> unregulated and safest ccTLDs.
> >>
> >> What puzzles me (not intending to accuse anybody) is that is seems that
> many are saying that by agreeing to this, we would be ceding to
> governments, which we should not do. And one of the arguments they use, is
> that the US government would never agree to this and the transition would
> fail.
> >> So we can yield to one government (without protesting) as long as it is
> the US? It seems that this argument is mainly used by American nationals.
> Probably because the logic is less obvious to those from other countries.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Roelof
> >>
> >> From:
> >> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountabili
> >> ty-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm
> >> unity-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces
> >> @icann.org>>> on behalf of Greg Shatan
> >> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregsh
> >> atanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
> >> Date: vrijdag 29 januari 2016 00:24
> >> To:
> >> "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross
> >> -community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> >> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>"
> >> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross
> >> -community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org<
> >> mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>>
> >> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC
> >> consensus, and finishing
> >>
> >> 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<mailto:
> 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<mailto: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<mailto:ajs at anvil
> >> walrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
> >> Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<m
> >> ailto: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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
> >> Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<m
> >> ailto: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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-
> >> Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<m
> >> ailto: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<mailto: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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e0e8b37c/attachment-0001.html>