<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<div>
<div>+1</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Rafael</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size:9px">Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.</div>
<br>
<br>
<div>-------- Original message --------</div>
<div>From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch </div>
<div>Date:01/02/2016 15:13 (GMT+01:00) </div>
<div>To: FinPet@erst.dk </div>
<div>Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org </div>
<div>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Sounds a very sensible way forward, although Becky's proposal contains a principle which perhaps should not only be applied to the GAC.<br>
<br>
regards<br>
<br>
Jorge<br>
<br>
Von meinem iPhone gesendet<br>
<br>
Am 01.02.2016 um 14:34 schrieb Finn Petersen <FinPet@erst.dk<mailto:FinPet@erst.dk>>:<br>
<br>
Dear Becky, Co-chairs, all,<br>
<br>
As we have stated in the Danish comments to the CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal, we fully support Recommendation 11. We believe it is a carefully drafted compromise, which we hoped (and still do) would achieve the support such a compromise deserves in order to move
the CCWG proposal forward. We would also like to remind colleagues that the 2/3 threshold for the ICANN Board rejecting GAC consensus advice was agreed by the GAC in the GAC Communiqué Dublin.<br>
<br>
However, we feel Becky’s proposal is a very constructive way forward and is worth discussing further. It would also eliminate the need to do a poll at the CCWG-meeting tomorrow morning. It would be unfortunate go down that road at this moment in time as it
seems that Becky’s proposal addresses some of the concerns expressed. Also it is not clear to us whether the result (based on the recent discussion on the list) would take us any further in our work.<br>
<br>
ICANN’s communities need not be further divided – it is time for convergence and compromise!<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Finn<br>
<br>
<br>
Kind regards<br>
<br>
Finn Petersen<br>
Director of International ICT Rellations<br>
<br>
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY<br>
<br>
Dahlerups Pakhus<br>
Langelinie Allé 17<br>
DK-2100 København Ø<br>
Telephone: +45 3529 1000<br>
Direct: +45 3529 1013<br>
Mobile: +45 2072 7131<br>
E-mail: FinPet@erst.dk<<a href="mailto:FinPet@erst.dk">mailto:FinPet@erst.dk</a>><br>
<a href="http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk">www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk</a>><br>
<br>
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH<br>
<br>
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.<br>
<br>
<br>
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] På vegne af Burr,
Becky<br>
Sendt: 29. januar 2016 21:05<br>
Til: Greg Shatan; Mueller, Milton L<br>
Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><br>
Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing<br>
<br>
I have a proposal for discussion.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Just a thought -<br>
J. Beckwith Burr<br>
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer<br>
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006<br>
Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<<a href="http://www.neustar.biz">http://www.neustar.biz</a>><br>
<br>
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><br>
Date: Friday, January 29, 2016 at 2:38 PM<br>
To: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>><br>
Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>><br>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing<br>
<br>
Milton,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Greg<br>
<br>
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote:<br>
Greg:<br>
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.<br>
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.<br>
<br>
So I think the answer to your question, “is there any affirmative support for the 2/3 threshold?” outside the GAC is clearly no.<br>
<br>
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>>]
On Behalf Of Greg Shatan<br>
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 11:58 AM<br>
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>><br>
Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><br>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing<br>
<br>
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 <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote:<br>
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>
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 < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:<br>
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,<br>
WIN-WIN YES, loose-loose yes ,for every body BUT NOT LOOSE FOR gac and win for the others .<br>
THAT IS NOT FAIR<br>
Kavouss<br>
2016-01-28 23:45 GMT+01:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> >:<br>
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>
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>
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>
Best regards,<br>
A<br>
--<br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=</a>><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=</a>><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>