[CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution
sdelbianco at netchoice.org
Mon Feb 1 18:34:24 UTC 2016
If we are going to consider alternatives to Rec 11 on our next call, please keep in mind that last week we discussed another alternative that was published in the Rec 11 1st reading document<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Final+Report?preview=/56989168/58002207/Rec%2011%20-%20GAC%20advice%20First%20reading%20conclusion%20v4_SDB.pdf>.
On page 1 we listed these 2 alternative ways to address Stress Test 18:
5. Confirm or discuss recommendation for 2/3 threshold (11 votes) for Board to reject GAC advice that was approved by GAC general agreement in the absence of any formal objection. The present threshold is majority (9 votes). CCWGshould evaluatewhether requiring 2 more board votes to reject GAC advice is an appropriate threshold, given that GAC would be required to approve such advice by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection.
6. Discuss request that GAC advice must be approved by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, under the present threshold for a majority of board to reject GAC advice.
We briefly discussed #6 above, as it was consistent with comments from many in CCWG, and reflected the original recommendation from the Stress Test work party in February-2105.
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>>
Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 11:52 AM
To: Becky Burr <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>, Phil Buckingham <phil at dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil at dotadvice.co.uk>>, 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>, 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution
Could you clarify a couple of things for me? First, this would apply to all GAC advice, correct? Second, if GAC is not included, the thresholds for exercising powers 1, 2, 5 and 7 would have to be adjusted to prevent a unanimity requirement for exercising them, correct?
From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz]
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 10:49 AM
To: Phil Buckingham; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; Schaefer, Brett
Cc: acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>; 'Thomas Rickert'; 'CCWG Accountability'
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution
Kavouss¹ proposal (Board may reject GAC Advice only with support of 60% of
its members) is simple and it is a compromise - essentially midway between
a majority and a 2/3rds standard.
My proposal attempts to address some of the structural concerns that arise
when you look at Recommendations 1, 10 and 11 together. Specifically, it
is intended to address the ³2 bites at the apple² situation when (1) the
GAC issues Advice, which is then accepted by the Board - even where a
majority (but not 60% or 66%) of the Board opposes that and (2) the
community would like to consider challenging the Board¹s implementation as
exceeding the scope of ICANN¹s Mission. In that situation, the GAC has
indicated that it will participate in the escalation decision regarding
invocation a community power, for example through an IRP. I propose that
we should maintain the current threshold (e.g., no more than 2 SO/ACs
object), but that the GAC¹s vote should not be counted to block use of a
community power to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. I
would note that Jorge notes that this principle should be applied across
the Board. I don¹t agree, as I think that GAC Advice is not comparable to
the output of, for example, a PDP process.
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://neustar.biz>
On 2/1/16, 10:26 AM, "Phil Buckingham" <phil at dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil at dotadvice.co.uk>> wrote:
>Thank you for your compromise proposal/ solution. The CCWG really does
>to get over this huge hurdle.
>I am struggling to keep to up.
> In preparation for the call tomorrow , could you/ Co Chairs summarise
>and Becky ' alternative recommendation. The key question to me is which
>easier to implement and the simplest to understand.
>From: 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
>Sent: 01 February 2016 13:35
>To: Schaefer, Brett
>Cc: acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>; Thomas Rickert; CCWG Accountability
>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution
>I think it id more straight forward to take 60% than Becky ,s proposal not
>because mine is better but more simpler.
>I appeal to you and your distinguished colleagues as well as Becky to
>kindly consider 60% with favourable thought Kavouss
>Sent from my iPhone
>> On 1 Feb 2016, at 13:21, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>>
>> I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't the arguments against the 2/3 requirement,
>which is after all 66%, apply just as much to the 60% proposal?
>> I think Becky's proposal gets much closer to addressing the substance of
>the concerns raised.
>> Brett Schaefer
>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
>> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
>> Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation
>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
>> Washington, DC 20002
>> On Jan 31, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Greg Shatan
><gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>> I wanted to pluck this suggestion out of the email swamp.
>> Kavouss made an alternative proposal concerning another threshold
>Simple Majority and 2/3 -- the alternative threshold is 60%.
>> Speaking only for myself, this could be a simple but creative way out of
>the current situation. It is a literally a middle ground between the
>current majority threshold and the previously proposed 2/3 threshold:
>> Yes, by majority
>> Yes, if by 60%
>> Yes, if by 2/3
>> This would require one more vote than the current threshold and one less
>vote than the 2/3 threshold. Win/win?
>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
><kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>> Dear Co-Chairs
>> Pls kindly confirm that you have received my last alternative proposal
>> concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3. This
>> alternative threshould is 60% There has been many cases considered
>> with that level of threshold Pls confirm its recption and confirm
>> actions to be taken before you go to poll Awaiting for your reply
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community