<html>
<body>
Sorry to take so long to get back.<br><br>
No, I didn't misunderstand. <br><br>
Recall that when I first raised the possibility of a Sole Designator
model (01 Sep 2015), with the exception of a few At-Large comments, all
those who responded to the list outright rejected it and some added a bit
of personal derision for good measure. The only comments I received in
support were via private e-mail from people who agreed that this is
something we should seriously consider, but did not dare to do it on the
public list. <br><br>
Yes here we are, trying to finish off the final touches of a sole
designator model.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 29/01/2016 11:58 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Alan,<br><br>
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.<br><br>
But this virtually always starts with a position that already has
significant multistakeholder support.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Greg<br>
<br><br>
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Greg, <br><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>Alan<br><br>
<dd>At 28/01/2016 06:24 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>I'd like to ask a simple question.<br><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>Greg<br><br>
<dd>[cross-posts to GAC list removed]<br><br>
<dd>On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh
<<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">
kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>> wrote:
<dl>
<dd>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,
<dd>WIN-WIN YES, loose-loose yes ,for every body BUT NOT LOOSE FOR gac
and win for the others .
<dd>THAT IS NOT FAIR
<dd><font color="#888888">Kavouss </font>
<dd>2016-01-28 23:45 GMT+01:00 Andrew Sullivan
<<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>
>:
<dl>
<dd>On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:26:54PM +0000, Jeff Neuman wrote:
<dd>> Where in writing has the GAC stated that it will reject the
accountability proposal of the 2/3 threshold is not in there.<br>
<dd>I didn't intend to suggest that they'd stated that in writing, but
<dd>rather to suggest that the GAC had consensus around the 2/3 number.
<dd>But this'll teach me to go from memory, because I was relying on my
<dd>recollection of the Dublin communiqé. In fact it does not
exactly say
<dd>that the GAC has consensus about the 2/3 threshold, so I'm
wrong.<br>
<dd>I still believe that the compromise position is an effective way
<dd>forward that actually gives no additional real power to the GAC
<dd>(because of the new Empowered Community) while yet granting the 2/3
<dd>number that many seem to think is important. But the claim in
favour
<dd>of 2/3 is indeed weaker given the GAC's stated positions.<br>
<dd>Best regards,<br>
<dd>A<br>
<dd>--
<dd>Andrew Sullivan
<dd><a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>
<dd>_______________________________________________
<dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<dd><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br><br>
</dl>
</dl><br><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br><br>
<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</blockquote><br>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>