<p dir="ltr">Hello Becky,</p>
<p dir="ltr">This would have indeed been a perfect compromise, if the function of 2/3 is made clear to Washington as insignificant especially if the board is fine with it. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I can imagine what the headline will look like if 2/3 is maintained in the proposal and this does not necessarily mean that it has any negative/positive impact on this proposal but considering the current hype level, it has become a popular topic.</p>
<p dir="ltr">That said, i hope such IRP restriction on GAC would exclude anything that would affect their current structural establishment as I believe they should always but be empowered to give an opinion in such scenarios. It is my hope that GAC would accept this as a compromise option so this can be considered closed.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 29 Jan 2016 9:05 p.m., &quot;Burr, Becky&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>&gt; wrote:<br type="attribution"><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>I have a proposal for discussion.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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 Board’s implementation of GAC Advice.  In other words, the GAC  would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice
 alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s Mission.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Just a thought - </div>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.0pt"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:9pt;line-height:115%">J. Beckwith Burr</span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#262626">
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#3366ff"><br>
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#008656">Neustar, Inc.</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#068658">
</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#7d7d7d">/</span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#068658">
</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#7d7d7d">Deputy General Counsel &amp; Chief Privacy Officer<br>
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:gray"><br>
</span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#008656">Office:</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#7d7d7d">
</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#7d7d7d"><a href="tel:%2B1.202.533.2932" value="+12025332932" target="_blank">+1.202.533.2932</a> 
</span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#008656">Mobile:</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#7d7d7d">
</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#7d7d7d"><a href="tel:%2B1.202.352.6367" value="+12023526367" target="_blank">+1.202.352.6367</a>
<strong><span style="font-family:Arial">/</span></strong></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#068658">
</span><a href="http://www.neustar.biz" target="_blank"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#008656">neustar.biz</span></b></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;color:gray"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</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>Greg Shatan &lt;<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>&gt;<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Friday, January 29, 2016 at 2:38 PM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>&quot;Mueller, Milton L&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank">milton@gatech.edu</a>&gt;<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>Accountability Community &lt;<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>&gt;<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Milton,</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</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 12:50 PM, Mueller, Milton L <span dir="ltr">
&lt;<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank">milton@gatech.edu</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Greg:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">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.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">So I think the answer to your question,</span> “is there any affirmative support for the 2/3 threshold?”
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,78,121)">
outside the GAC is clearly no. </span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,78,121)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,78,121)"><u></u> <u></u></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:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>
 [mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Greg Shatan<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, January 29, 2016 11:58 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Alan Greenberg &lt;<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>&gt;<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><span><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing<u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif">Alan,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif">Greg<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif">  <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Alan Greenberg &lt;<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>&gt; wrote:<u></u><u></u></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 &quot;is a good idea, or enhances ICANN&#39;s accountability, or corrects a problem/deficiency in the Bylaws, or is needed for
 the transition&quot;. 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>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">I&#39;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&#39;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&#39;m not asking about the value of compromise, or the effect (or lack thereof) of the change, or whether it&#39;s something you can live with.  I&#39;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 &lt;<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank"> kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">GAC did not formally reject the Rec 11 in announcing that &quot; no consensus is reached &quot; 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,
<u></u><u></u></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 .<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">THAT IS NOT FAIR <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="color:#888888">Kavouss  </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">2016-01-28 23:45 GMT+01:00 Andrew Sullivan &lt;<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a> &gt;:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:26:54PM +0000, Jeff Neuman wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
&gt; Where in writing has the GAC stated that it will reject the accountability proposal of the 2/3 threshold is not in there.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">I didn&#39;t intend to suggest that they&#39;d stated that in writing, but<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">rather to suggest that the GAC had consensus around the 2/3 number.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">But this&#39;ll teach me to go from memory, because I was relying on my<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">recollection of the Dublin communiqé.  In fact it does not exactly say<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
that the GAC has consensus about the 2/3 threshold, so I&#39;m wrong.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">I still believe that the compromise position is an effective way<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">forward that actually gives no additional real power to the GAC<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">(because of the new Empowered Community) while yet granting the 2/3<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">number that many seem to think is important.  But the claim in favour<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
of 2/3 is indeed weaker given the GAC&#39;s stated positions.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
Best regards,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
A<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">--<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Andrew Sullivan<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">_______________________________________________<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&amp;d=CwMFaQ&amp;c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&amp;r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&amp;m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&amp;s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&amp;e=" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">_______________________________________________<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&amp;d=CwMFaQ&amp;c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&amp;r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&amp;m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&amp;s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&amp;e=" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><u></u><u></u></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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&amp;d=CwMFaQ&amp;c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&amp;r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&amp;m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&amp;s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&amp;e=" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</div>

<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">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>