[CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Mon Feb 1 18:48:46 UTC 2016


Jorge +1
Kavouss Also appreciate Becky, s proposal but it would be complex to
apply and could require restructyring of the oricess
I

Sent from my iPhone

> On 1 Feb 2016, at 17:00, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
>
> Dear Becky
>
> I thank you (again) for your constructive and creative proposal, which tries to address concerns expressed by colleagues in the GNSO.
>
> But I would like to clarify my point again: A PDP proposal might normally be a widely debated product, but there is no guarantee for that. Other parts of the community might feel that the proposal might be inconsistent with the Bylaws. Why should the community IRP be susceptible to be blocked in such a case by the very SO proposing that proposal?
>
> Apart from PDPs if I understand well the mechanics, there might be also other "products" put before the Board by a SO/AC (such as a GNSO Guidance) which might also be considered inconsistent with the Bylaws by other parts of the community. Why should the proposing SO/AC be allowed a "second bite at the apple", with the only exception of the GAC?
>
> I feel this is an issue of applying the same principle to similar situations and although I can understand it at a principle-level I'm still not sure why we should only apply it to decisions of the Board based on GAC advice.
>
> Regards
>
> Jorge
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky
> Gesendet: Montag, 1. Februar 2016 16:49
> An: Phil Buckingham <phil at dotadvice.co.uk>; 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>; 'Schaefer, Brett' <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
> Cc: acct-staff at icann.org; 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas at rickert.net>; 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Betreff: 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://www.neustar.biz>
>
>
>
>
>> On 2/1/16, 10:26 AM, "Phil Buckingham" <phil at dotadvice.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Kavouss,
>>
>> Thank you for your compromise proposal/ solution. The CCWG really does
>> need
>> to get over this  huge hurdle.
>> I am struggling to keep to up.
>> In preparation for the call tomorrow , could you/ Co Chairs  summarise
>> your
>> and Becky ' alternative recommendation.  The key question to me is which
>> is
>> easier to implement and the simplest to understand.
>> Many thanks,
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>> Kavouss Arasteh
>> Sent: 01 February 2016 13:35
>> To: Schaefer, Brett
>> Cc: acct-staff at icann.org; Thomas Rickert; CCWG Accountability
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution
>>
>> Dear Brett
>> I think it id more straight forward to take 60% than Becky ,s proposal not
>> because mine is better but more simpler.
>> Regards
>> 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>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>> 202-608-6097
>>>
>>> heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage
>>> .org_&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa
>>> hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=TnI7iy91U78v
>>> r2iGqvQgUvyuD2Gjh7I0sPPGfgh1zlk&e= >
>>>
>>>> On Jan 31, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Greg Shatan
>>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I wanted to pluck this suggestion out of the email swamp.
>>>
>>> Kavouss made an alternative proposal concerning another threshold
>>> between
>> 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:
>>>
>>> Votes
>>>
>>> Percentage
>>>
>>> Result
>>>
>>> 8/16
>>>
>>> 50%
>>>
>>> No
>>>
>>> 9/16
>>>
>>> 56.25%
>>>
>>> Yes, by majority
>>>
>>> 10/16
>>>
>>> 62.50%
>>>
>>> Yes, if by 60%
>>>
>>> 11/16
>>>
>>> 68.75%
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
>>> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto: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
>>> Kavouss
>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C
>>> ommunity at icann.org>
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbn
>>> Y6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&e=
>>> <h
>>> ttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C
>>> ommunity at icann.org>
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbn
>>> Y6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&e=
>>> <h
>>> ttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C
>>> ommunity at icann.org>
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>> lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbn
>>> Y6bFNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&e=
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
>> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU
>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY6b
>> FNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&e=
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
>> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU
>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=z17C11pOMlMv6qx5vbnY6b
>> FNegpw3uCt6AneXn5FbNE&s=MaiOK6qilWbg2XHPJgflM2MtzgpoILhJK6CpBSHn1E8&e=
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list