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

Mon Feb 1 14:59:18 UTC 2016

Good for you Finn 

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl
e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=em
ail&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016> 

From: Finn Petersen [mailto:FinPet at erst.dk] 
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 8:23 AM
To: 'Burr, Becky' <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>; Greg Shatan
<gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC
consensus, and finishing

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> 

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 /  <http://www.neustar.biz>
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

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_l
istinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw
&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc
7CU9_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_l
istinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw
&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc
7CU9_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_l
istinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw
&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc
7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160201/96f2530c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2849 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160201/96f2530c/image001-0001.png>