[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing

Perez Galindo, Rafael RPEREZGA at minetur.es
Mon Feb 1 14:35:22 UTC 2016 

+1

Rafael


Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.


-------- Original message --------
From: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Date:01/02/2016 15:13 (GMT+01:00)
To: FinPet at erst.dk
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing

Sounds a very sensible way forward, although Becky's proposal contains a principle which perhaps should not only be applied to the GAC.

regards

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 01.02.2016 um 14:34 schrieb Finn Petersen <FinPet at erst.dk<mailto:FinPet at erst.dk>>:

Dear Becky, Co-chairs, all,

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.

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.

ICANN’s communities need not be further divided – it is time for convergence and compromise!

Best,

Finn


Kind regards

Finn Petersen
Director of International ICT Rellations

DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY

Dahlerups Pakhus
Langelinie Allé 17
DK-2100 København Ø
Telephone: +45 3529 1000
Direct: +45 3529 1013
Mobile: +45 2072 7131
E-mail: FinPet at erst.dk<mailto:FinPet at erst.dk>
www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>>

MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH

P Please consider the environment before printing this email.


Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky
Sendt: 29. januar 2016 21:05
Til: Greg Shatan; Mueller, Milton L
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing

I have a proposal for discussion.

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.

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.

Just a thought -
J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, January 29, 2016 at 2:38 PM
To: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing

Milton,

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.

Greg

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:
Greg:
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.
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.

So I think the answer to your question, “is there any affirmative support for the 2/3 threshold?” outside the GAC is clearly no.

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 11:58 AM
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing

Alan,

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.

But this virtually always starts with a position that already has significant multistakeholder support.

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.

Greg


On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>> wrote:
Greg,

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.

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.

Alan

At 28/01/2016 06:24 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
I'd like to ask a simple question.

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?

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.

Greg

[cross-posts to GAC list removed]

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
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,
WIN-WIN YES, loose-loose yes ,for every body BUT NOT LOOSE FOR gac and win for the others .
THAT IS NOT FAIR
Kavouss
2016-01-28 23:45 GMT+01:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> >:
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:26:54PM +0000, Jeff Neuman wrote:
> Where in writing has the GAC stated that it will reject the accountability proposal of the 2/3 threshold is not in there.
I didn't intend to suggest that they'd stated that in writing, but
rather to suggest that the GAC had consensus around the 2/3 number.
But this'll teach me to go from memory, because I was relying on my
recollection of the Dublin communiqé.  In fact it does not exactly say
that the GAC has consensus about the 2/3 threshold, so I'm wrong.
I still believe that the compromise position is an effective way
forward that actually gives no additional real power to the GAC
(because of the new Empowered Community) while yet granting the 2/3
number that many seem to think is important.  But the claim in favour
of 2/3 is indeed weaker given the GAC's stated positions.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
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=>

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
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=>

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
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=>


_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160201/f32fc973/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list