<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I don't think that's the intent or effect of Andrew's email. I think he was just setting the stage and working through an analysis to show his thinking, which with I generally agree. One could quibble about whether they are independent or complementary, but they are not "mutually exclusive" as a matter of analysis. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">As a bargaining position, it is valid to say that they are mutually exclusive. It is equally valid to say that they are a package. For that matter, it's also valid bargaining position to say that the only acceptable package is Becky's proposal and no increase in the voting threshold. And it's valid to say that we want to keep the voting threshold at simple majority and we don't really care about Becky's proposal (so we'll take it if it's there, but give it up if it holds the line at simple majority). It's all fine and good to show our opening positions -- but where do we go from there?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">In any event, this is an interlinked issue of 1, 10 and 11, so one can't say that any of these are truly "closed" until they are all closed. But that doesn't mean everything is back on the table.</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"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:06 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">Adrew<br>
You gave opened the Entire Recs 1 and 11 for discussion<br>
Good luck<br>
I do not think that was the issue given to the devoted group.<br>
If every body to be intentionally and expressly confused then the two above-mentioned RECs. to be opened entirely.<br>
Tks<br>
Kavouss<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
> On 2 Feb 2016, at 17:14, Andrew Sullivan <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
>> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:24:58PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:<br>
>> The issue was discussed and many participants clearly mentioned that their main concerns was not to empower GAC to participate in an IRP dealing with GAC advice as objecting SO/AC but could agree to retain 2/3,<br>
><br>
> I am not exactly sure which "the issue" we're talking about here,<br>
> because it seems to me there are multiple interlocking issues:<br>
><br>
> (a) the threshold at which the Board will need to<br>
> vote/agree/whatever if it is to decide not to accept GAC consensus<br>
> advice;<br>
><br>
> (b) exactly how the board concludes that some advice from the GAC<br>
> is in fact GAC consensus;<br>
><br>
> (c) whether the GAC gets to be part of the decision-making at<br>
> ICANN or remains merely advisory;<br>
><br>
> (d) if GAC is part of the decision-making, whether it gets to<br>
> participate in decisions affecting board decisions about GAC<br>
> advice taken under item (b).<br>
><br>
> Here's what I think is going on:<br>
><br>
> On (a), we had previous proposals for the existing threshold (50%+1)<br>
> and a higher threshold (2/3). Some have asserted that the 2/3<br>
> threshold is the GAC's position at Dublin, but in reviewing the<br>
> materials I cannot find the proof of that. The 2/3 level was put in<br>
> draft 3 subject conditions on (b). Some of the comments on draft 3<br>
> have argued that without changes at least to (d), the draft 3 proposal<br>
> is no good. Others seem to have argued that anything above 50%+1 is<br>
> not allowed (I think this is a position that has been attributed to<br>
> the GNSO lately). And finally, you propose to split the difference<br>
> and set it at 60%, which with the current numbers of the board<br>
> assuming all are present means just one additional vote.<br>
><br>
> On (b), draft 3 set the mechanism at the historical meaning of<br>
> consensus that the board could use in making its determination.<br>
> Previously, that had appeared controversial, and it was the adjustment<br>
> to language that, it seemed to me, cause the "US Thanksgiving<br>
> compromise" to be reached. That compromise was apparently not<br>
> durable, but nobody now seems to be arguing that the board's criteria<br>
> for considering something "GAC consensus advice" ought to be anything<br>
> than full consensus with no formal objection. I hope we can leave<br>
> this alone, but I think Malcolm's line of argument basically goes to<br>
> this item.<br>
><br>
> (c) is something that only the GAC can say, and it's vexing (as Becky<br>
> pointed out) that we don't yet seem to have an answer from the GAC. I<br>
> think at bottom it is this change to which Robin regularly objects, at<br>
> least if I understand her arguments.<br>
><br>
> (d) is the issue that Becky's proposal is designed to solve.<br>
> Basically, her proposal is that, if the GAC decides to issue advice<br>
> that would trigger (a), then it's not allowed to invoke its ability to<br>
> do (c) as well. This has nothing to do with the threshold in (a).<br>
> Instead, it's a branching function: which path does the GAC choose?<br>
> Since only the GAC has the ability to choose one or the other, the<br>
> rules only apply to the GAC; but I think they could in principle apply<br>
> to any body that had this ability.<br>
><br>
>> Based on that assumption I could agree to take Beck's proposal as an alternative ,<br>
><br>
> As you see from the above, your proposal and Becky's are not<br>
> alternatives, but are mutually independent lines of argument.<br>
><br>
> Best regards,<br>
><br>
> A<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Andrew Sullivan<br>
> <a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><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>
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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>