<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Roelof,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">You answered the question I expressly said I wasn't asking -- "<span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:14px">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.</span>"</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I think you *almost* answered the question I did ask, when you said "<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"> </span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px">Not because I think it is a great idea, though I do not think it is a bad idea either.</span>" So it seems you do not affirmatively support the concept as such.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Roelof Meijer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl" target="_blank">Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<div>
<div>
<div>Greg, all,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div><font color="#000000"><font face="Calibri">Best,</font></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><font face="Calibri">Roelof</font></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span>
<div style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:11pt;text-align:left;color:black;BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;BORDER-LEFT:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0in;PADDING-LEFT:0in;PADDING-RIGHT:0in;BORDER-TOP:#b5c4df 1pt solid;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;PADDING-TOP:3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span><<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>vrijdag 29 januari 2016 00:24<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>"<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing<br>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I'd like to ask a simple question.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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?</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">[cross-posts to GAC list removed]</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>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,
</div>
<div>WIN-WIN YES, loose-loose yes ,for every body BUT NOT LOOSE FOR gac and win for the others .</div>
<div>THAT IS NOT FAIR </div>
<span><font color="#888888">
<div>Kavouss </div>
</font></span></div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2016-01-28 23:45 GMT+01:00 Andrew Sullivan <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span>On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:26:54PM +0000, Jeff Neuman wrote:<br>
> Where in writing has the GAC stated that it will reject the accountability proposal of the 2/3 threshold is not in there.<br>
<br>
</span>I didn't intend to suggest that they'd stated that in writing, but<br>
rather to suggest that the GAC had consensus around the 2/3 number.<br>
But this'll teach me to go from memory, because I was relying on my<br>
recollection of the Dublin communiqé. In fact it does not exactly say<br>
that the GAC has consensus about the 2/3 threshold, so I'm wrong.<br>
<br>
I still believe that the compromise position is an effective way<br>
forward that actually gives no additional real power to the GAC<br>
(because of the new Empowered Community) while yet granting the 2/3<br>
number that many seem to think is important. But the claim in favour<br>
of 2/3 is indeed weaker given the GAC's stated positions.<br>
<div>
<div><br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
A<br>
<br>
--<br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></span>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>