<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Greg:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">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.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">So I think the answer to your question,</span> “is there any affirmative support for the 2/3 threshold?”
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">
outside the GAC is clearly no. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Greg Shatan<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, January 29, 2016 11:58 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca><br>
<b>Cc:</b> accountability-cross-community@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Alan,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">But this virtually always starts with a position that already has significant multistakeholder support.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Greg<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Greg, <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
At 28/01/2016 06:24 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">I'd like to ask a simple question.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Greg<br>
<br>
[cross-posts to GAC list removed]<br>
<br>
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank"> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">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,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">WIN-WIN YES, loose-loose yes ,for every body BUT NOT LOOSE FOR gac and win for the others .<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">THAT IS NOT FAIR <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="color:#888888">Kavouss </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">2016-01-28 23:45 GMT+01:00 Andrew Sullivan <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a> >:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:26:54PM +0000, Jeff Neuman wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
> Where in writing has the GAC stated that it will reject the accountability proposal of the 2/3 threshold is not in there.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">I didn't intend to suggest that they'd stated that in writing, but<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">rather to suggest that the GAC had consensus around the 2/3 number.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">But this'll teach me to go from memory, because I was relying on my<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">recollection of the Dublin communiqé. In fact it does not exactly say<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
that the GAC has consensus about the 2/3 threshold, so I'm wrong.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">I still believe that the compromise position is an effective way<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">forward that actually gives no additional real power to the GAC<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">(because of the new Empowered Community) while yet granting the 2/3<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">number that many seem to think is important. But the claim in favour<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
of 2/3 is indeed weaker given the GAC's stated positions.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
A<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">--<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Andrew Sullivan<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>