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

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Becky,
Further to my request  sent to you during the call, pls kindly describe
your proposal in a clear language which could results in breaking the
Deadlock on Rec 11 as well as improve Rec 1.
My proposal is merely relates to Rec 11
THESE TWO PROPOSALS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Pls also consider Malcolm
proposal. However, any proposal which requires or involves structural
changes within the existing structure of ICANN is outside the mandate of
CCWG
Regards
Kavouss

2016-02-02 6:29 GMT+01:00 Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>:

> Hi all,
>
> As we prepare for our upcoming call, I want to reiterate my support for
> Becky's suggestion. I must also remind everyone that the GNSO is highly
> unlikely to support inclusion of the 2/3 threshold.
>
> As I communicated to the CCWG last week, the GNSO's voting procedures
> would result in a "no" vote on Recommendation 11 if a poll were held today,
> and I don't see a willingness to change views on the 2/3 issue.
>
> Therefore, as a possible approach, I suggest we consider combining
> Kavouss' 60% proposal with Becky's proposal and trying to find consensus
> around that. Using 60% splits the difference between 2/3 and current
> practice, it is lower than the threshold rejected by the community last
> year, and lower than the threshold the U.S. Senate was told was "off the
> table."
>
> Otherwise, I think the only alternative to secure GNSO support is to leave
> the Board threshold at simple majority and include the rest of
> Recommendation 11, as required by NTIA.
>
> I unfortunately don't see another path to a successful and timely
> conclusion of our work that secures necessary support and avoids formal
> objection from our Chartering Organizations.
>
> Regards,
> Keith
>
> On Feb 1, 2016, at 1:32 PM, Mark Carvell <mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Steve.  That's very helpful - need to build on this in procedural
> terms I suggest.
>
> Kind regards - appreciate your efforts as always!
>
> Mark
>
> Mark Carvell
> Global Internet Governance Policy
> Department for Culture, Media and Sport
> mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk
> tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062
>
> On 1 February 2016 at 17:45, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Mark — in the Dublin breakout meetings for CCWG, the community decision
>> group surfaced this idea:
>>
>> Within the community decision process, each AC/SO would decide, using its
>> own methods, one of four decisions:
>>
>> it supports the proposed exercise of the community power,
>> it objects to the exercise of the community power,
>> It wishes to advise the other community participants if its views, but
>> neither supports nor opposes,
>> it wishes to remain silent on the matter.
>>
>>
>> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
>> Mark Carvell <mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk>
>> Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 11:19 AM
>> To: Finn Petersen <FinPet at erst.dk>
>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
>> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC
>> consensus, and finishing
>>
>> Dear CCWG colleagues
>>
>> As you know, the UK Government supports Recommendation 11. I believe
>> there is support outside the GAC for the 2/3 threshold for rejection of GAC
>> advice.  I agree that there is potential in Becky's proposal for a
>> compromise solution for obviating the double opportunity risk.
>>
>> While the GAC would not participating in some potentially critical
>> decisions under this arrangement, the community should recognise the value
>> of the GAC providing advice in the form of guidance that *inter alia*
>> recounts the rationale for its original advice to the Board.
>>
>> I also suggest more generally that some formality is accorded to the
>> process whereby any non-participating AC can provide advice, in order to
>> ensure that such advice when received is duly recorded, taken fully into
>> account and responded to, before the participating SO/ACs proceed to a
>> decision.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> Mark Carvell
>> ​United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of
>> ICANN​
>>
>> Global Internet Governance Policy
>> Department for Culture, Media and Sport
>> mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk
>> tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062
>>
>> On 1 February 2016 at 13:22, Finn Petersen <FinPet at erst.dk> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>> http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk
>>>
>>>
>>> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
>>>
>>> PPlease consider the environment before printing this email.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Fra:* 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
>>> *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>
>>> *Date: *Friday, January 29, 2016 at 2:38 PM
>>> *To: *"Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>
>>> *Cc: *Accountability Community <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>
>>> 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] *On Behalf Of *Greg
>>> Shatan
>>> *Sent:* Friday, January 29, 2016 11:58 AM
>>> *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>>> *Cc:* 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> 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> 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 >:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160202/7170607c/attachment-0001.html>