<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Citation to the "GAC Dublin consensus" is quite interesting, when you look at it a bit.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">First, assuming there were a GAC Dublin consensus on the 2/3 threshold, that does not bind the CCWG nor is the CCWG required to give that consensus any type of deference, aside from the treatment it would give to a position held by any of the Chartering Organizations. It is true that it would be "difficult to reconcile" a majority vote with a 2/3 vote, but that's true of every position of every organization that is different from the CCWG's position. We are under no special obligation to reconcile the CCWG's outcomes with "GAC Dublin consensus."</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Second, in looking for "GAC Dublin consensus" what I found seem to fall far short of that. Specifically, the GAC Dublin Communique says the following (in a section that is not "GAC Advice"):</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><font face="verdana, sans-serif" color="#783f04">The GAC recognizes that much progress has been made by the CCWG-Accountability in its
ongoing work, and welcomes the CCWG’s achievements to date and supports the efforts to
finalise its proposal for enhancing ICANN accountability as required for the IANA stewardship
transition.<br> <br>In assessing the specific accountability recommendations put forth so far by the CCWG Accountability,
the GAC considers that whatever the final outcome of this process may be, the
new accountability framework to be agreed upon must preserve the current role of
governments in ICANN.<br></font></blockquote><div><font color="#783f04"> </font></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><font face="verdana, sans-serif" color="#783f04">The discussions on Stress Test 18 have helped the GAC to have a better understanding of the
different views on the issue. In assessing the different rationales presented so far related to
Stress Test 18, the GAC considered: <br>• The need that each and every Advisory Committee ensures that the advice provided is
clear and reflects the consensus view of the Committee; <br>• The need that each and every Advisory Committee should preserve its own autonomy in
its definition of consensus; <br>• The value the Board attributes to receiving consensus advice; <br>• The recommendation of the BGRI WG, as reiterated by the ATRT2, to set the threshold
for the ICANN Board to reject GAC advice to a 2/3 majority voting, consistent with the
threshold established for rejection of ccNSO and GNSO PDP recommendations.
6
In view of the above, having considered concerns expressed by various parties, the GAC agreed
to further work on the issue of Stress Test 18, and to submit any further input to the CCWG
taking into account the timelines of the CCWG. GAC Members will continue to work within the
CCWG to finalise the proposal for enhancing ICANN accountability.</font></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Perhaps I am not very good at reading GAC communiques, but I don't see in there any statement that the GAC came to a consensus view in support of the 2/3 majority voting threshold. It only says that the GAC "considered" the 2/3 threshold when "assessing" "rationales" "related to Stress Test 18." What am I missing?</div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Finally, this states that the GAC considers that the new accountability framework "must preserve the current role of governments in ICANN." It seems to me that the simple majority vote does that, without any need for a higher threshold to satisfy that criterion.</div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 1:57 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" target="_blank">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Steve<br>
<br>
I feel that alternative 6 would be very difficult to reconcile with the Dublin GAC consensus as several of us have already expressed.<br>
<br>
Becky's proposal is also on the table and seems to address concerns expressed by gnso colleagues, while not changing the 2/3 which is part of the GAC Dublin consensus.<br>
<br>
Therefore I feel it is worthwile exploring it further.<br>
<br>
regards<br>
<br>
Jorge<br>
<br>
Von meinem iPhone gesendet<br>
<br>
Am 01.02.2016 um 19:35 schrieb Steve DelBianco <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org" target="_blank">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org" target="_blank">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>>>:<br>
<br>
If we are going to consider alternatives to Rec 11 on our next call, please keep in mind that last week we discussed another alternative that was published in the Rec 11 1st reading document<<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Final+Report?preview=/56989168/58002207/Rec%2011%20-%20GAC%20advice%20First%20reading%20conclusion%20v4_SDB.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Final+Report?preview=/56989168/58002207/Rec%2011%20-%20GAC%20advice%20First%20reading%20conclusion%20v4_SDB.pdf</a>>.<br>
<span><br>
On page 1 we listed these 2 alternative ways to address Stress Test 18:<br>
<br>
5. Confirm or discuss recommendation for 2/3 threshold (11 votes) for Board to reject GAC advice that was approved by GAC general agreement in the absence of any formal objection. The present threshold is majority (9 votes). CCWGshould evaluatewhether requiring 2 more board votes to reject GAC advice is an appropriate threshold, given that GAC would be required to approve such advice by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection.<br>
<br>
or<br>
<br>
6. Discuss request that GAC advice must be approved by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, under the present threshold for a majority of board to reject GAC advice.<br>
<br>
We briefly discussed #6 above, as it was consistent with comments from many in CCWG, and reflected the original recommendation from the Stress Test work party in February-2105.<br>
<br>
<br>
</span>From: <<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>>> on behalf of "Schaefer, Brett" <<a href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org" target="_blank">Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org" target="_blank">Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a>>><br>
<span>Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 11:52 AM<br>
</span>To: Becky Burr <<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>>>, Phil Buckingham <<a href="mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk" target="_blank">phil@dotadvice.co.uk</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk" target="_blank">phil@dotadvice.co.uk</a>>>, 'Kavouss Arasteh' <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>><br>
Cc: ACCT-Staff <<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org" target="_blank">acct-staff@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org" target="_blank">acct-staff@icann.org</a>>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net" target="_blank">thomas@rickert.net</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net" target="_blank">thomas@rickert.net</a>>>, 'CCWG Accountability' <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>>><br>
<span>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution<br>
<br>
Becky,<br>
<br>
Could you clarify a couple of things for me? First, this would apply to all GAC advice, correct? Second, if GAC is not included, the thresholds for exercising powers 1, 2, 5 and 7 would have to be adjusted to prevent a unanimity requirement for exercising them, correct?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Brett<br>
<br>
From: Burr, Becky [mailto:<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>]<br>
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 10:49 AM<br>
To: Phil Buckingham; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; Schaefer, Brett<br>
</span>Cc: <a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org" target="_blank">acct-staff@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org" target="_blank">acct-staff@icann.org</a>>; 'Thomas Rickert'; 'CCWG Accountability'<br>
<span>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution<br>
<br>
Kavouss¹ proposal (Board may reject GAC Advice only with support of 60% of<br>
its members) is simple and it is a compromise - essentially midway between<br>
a majority and a 2/3rds standard.<br>
<br>
My proposal attempts to address some of the structural concerns that arise<br>
when you look at Recommendations 1, 10 and 11 together. Specifically, it<br>
is intended to address the ³2 bites at the apple² situation when (1) the<br>
GAC issues Advice, which is then accepted by the Board - even where a<br>
majority (but not 60% or 66%) of the Board opposes that and (2) the<br>
community would like to consider challenging the Board¹s implementation as<br>
exceeding the scope of ICANN¹s Mission. In that situation, the GAC has<br>
indicated that it will participate in the escalation decision regarding<br>
invocation a community power, for example through an IRP. I propose that<br>
we should maintain the current threshold (e.g., no more than 2 SO/ACs<br>
object), but that the GAC¹s vote should not be counted to block use of a<br>
community power to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. I<br>
would note that Jorge notes that this principle should be applied across<br>
the Board. I don¹t agree, as I think that GAC Advice is not comparable to<br>
the output of, for example, a PDP process.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
J. Beckwith Burr<br>
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy<br>
General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer<br>
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006<br>
</span>Office: <a href="tel:%2B1.202.533.2932" value="+12025332932" target="_blank">+1.202.533.2932</a> Mobile: <a href="tel:%2B1.202.352.6367" value="+12023526367" target="_blank">+1.202.352.6367</a> / <a href="http://neustar.biz" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">neustar.biz</a><<a href="http://neustar.biz" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://neustar.biz</a>><br>
<<a href="http://www.neustar.biz" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.neustar.biz</a>><br>
<span><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/1/16, 10:26 AM, "Phil Buckingham" <<a href="mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk" target="_blank">phil@dotadvice.co.uk</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk" target="_blank">phil@dotadvice.co.uk</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
>Dear Kavouss,<br>
><br>
>Thank you for your compromise proposal/ solution. The CCWG really does<br>
>need<br>
>to get over this huge hurdle.<br>
>I am struggling to keep to up.<br>
> In preparation for the call tomorrow , could you/ Co Chairs summarise<br>
>your<br>
>and Becky ' alternative recommendation. The key question to me is which<br>
>is<br>
>easier to implement and the simplest to understand.<br>
>Many thanks,<br>
>Phil<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>-----Original Message-----<br>
>From: <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>><br>
>[mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of<br>
>Kavouss Arasteh<br>
>Sent: 01 February 2016 13:35<br>
>To: Schaefer, Brett<br>
</span><span>>Cc: <a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org" target="_blank">acct-staff@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org" target="_blank">acct-staff@icann.org</a>>; Thomas Rickert; CCWG Accountability<br>
>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution<br>
><br>
>Dear Brett<br>
>I think it id more straight forward to take 60% than Becky ,s proposal not<br>
>because mine is better but more simpler.<br>
>Regards<br>
>I appeal to you and your distinguished colleagues as well as Becky to<br>
>kindly consider 60% with favourable thought Kavouss<br>
><br>
>Sent from my iPhone<br>
><br>
</span>>> On 1 Feb 2016, at 13:21, Schaefer, Brett <<a href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org" target="_blank">Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org" target="_blank">Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a>>><br>
<span>>wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't the arguments against the 2/3 requirement,<br>
>which is after all 66%, apply just as much to the 60% proposal?<br>
>><br>
>> I think Becky's proposal gets much closer to addressing the substance of<br>
>the concerns raised.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> ________________________________<br>
>> Brett Schaefer<br>
>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs<br>
>> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National<br>
>> Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation<br>
>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br>
>> Washington, DC 20002<br>
>> <a href="tel:202-608-6097" value="+12026086097" target="_blank">202-608-6097</a><br>
>><br>
</span>>><a href="http://heritage.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">heritage.org</a><<a href="http://heritage.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://heritage.org</a>><<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage</a><br>
<span>>>.org_&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa<br>
>>hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=TnI7iy91U78v<br>
>>r2iGqvQgUvyuD2Gjh7I0sPPGfgh1zlk&e= ><br>
>><br>
>> On Jan 31, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Greg Shatan<br>
</span><div><div>><<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>%<a href="mailto:3cmailto%3Agregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> All,<br>
>><br>
>> I wanted to pluck this suggestion out of the email swamp.<br>
>><br>
>> Kavouss made an alternative proposal concerning another threshold<br>
>>between<br>
>Simple Majority and 2/3 -- the alternative threshold is 60%.<br>
>><br>
>> Speaking only for myself, this could be a simple but creative way out of<br>
>the current situation. It is a literally a middle ground between the<br>
>current majority threshold and the previously proposed 2/3 threshold:<br>
>><br>
>> Votes<br>
>><br>
>> Percentage<br>
>><br>
>> Result<br>
>><br>
>> 8/16<br>
>><br>
>> 50%<br>
>><br>
>> No<br>
>><br>
>> 9/16<br>
>><br>
>> 56.25%<br>
>><br>
>> Yes, by majority<br>
>><br>
>> 10/16<br>
>><br>
>> 62.50%<br>
>><br>
>> Yes, if by 60%<br>
>><br>
>> 11/16<br>
>><br>
>> 68.75%<br>
>><br>
>> Yes, if by 2/3<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> This would require one more vote than the current threshold and one less<br>
>vote than the 2/3 threshold. Win/win?<br>
>><br>
>> Greg<br>
>><br>
>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh<br>
</div></div><span>><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>%<a href="mailto:3cmailto%3Akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>>> wrote:<br>
>> Dear Co-Chairs<br>
>> Pls kindly confirm that you have received my last alternative proposal<br>
>> concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3. This<br>
>> alternative threshould is 60% There has been many cases considered<br>
>> with that level of threshold Pls confirm its recption and confirm<br>
>> actions to be taken before you go to poll Awaiting for your reply<br>
>> Kavouss<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> [...]<br>
<br>
</span><span>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><br>
</span><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>
<span>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
</span><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>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>