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

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Feb 1 04:46:22 UTC 2016

Sorry to take so long to get back.

No, I didn't misunderstand.

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.

Yes here we are, trying to finish off the final 
touches of a sole designator model.


At 29/01/2016 11:58 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>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.
>On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>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.
>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.
>>[cross-posts to GAC list removed]
>>On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Kavouss 
>>Arasteh <<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> 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 .
>>2016-01-28 23:45 GMT+01:00 Andrew Sullivan 
>><<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>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,
>>Andrew Sullivan
>><mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org 
>>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160131/fed08b66/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list