[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
Tue Feb 2 15:47:06 UTC 2016
Whether there are double gains or double losses depends on your starting
point. The status quo is (1) GAC Advice must be supported by consensus,
defined as general support with no formal objection; (2) a majority of the
Board can reject GAC Advice after efforts to find a mutually acceptable
solution; and (3) the GAC is purely advisory. The 3rd Draft Report
language would (1) lock in consensus definition; (2) require a
supermajority to reject GAC Advice; and (3) allow the GAC to participate
in a decision-making as opposed to purely advisory role. So arguably that
is ³double gains² for the GAC. The combined proposal would not reverse
those double gains - it would still take more than a majority of the Board
(60%) to reject GAC Advice and the GAC would still have the ability to
make a call at some point about playing an other than purely advisory role.
One issue that is complicating this discussion is that the GAC has not
really made a decision about whether it will remain in a purely advisory
role. If we had clarity on that point the discussions might be simpler.
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
On 2/2/16, 10:24 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>Too much expectations.
>The issue was discussed and many participants clearly mentioned that
>their main concerns was not to empower GAC to participate in an IRP
>dealing with GAC advice as objecting SO/AC but could agree to retain 2/3,
>Based on that assumption I could agree to take Beck's proposal as an
>One SO should not have double gains and another AC left to a double
>Pls be fair .
>One GAC member mentioned that the more concession by GAC the more asked
>This should be a WIN-WIN ,
>Sent from my iPhone
>> On 2 Feb 2016, at 16:06, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 03:47:56PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>>> I have just asked Becky to slightly modify her text by referring to"
>>> Board's Actions inregard with GAC aDVICE " and not ' GAC Advice" due
>>> fact that IRP could be invoked against Board's action and not an AC or
>> That all seems fine, but not directly relevant to the point I was
>> trying to make.
>>> Second the alternative of 60% is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE with Her Proposal
>>> after editorial amendments mentioned above.
>>> We CAN NOT TAKE BOTH OF THEM AS TWO MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE OPTIONS
>> Why? I don't get it.
>> One proposal (yours) governs the level of support within the board to
>> take a specific kind of decision.
>> The other proposal (Becky's) governs how various bodies may interact
>> when making such a decision. In this particular case, it is a rule
>> that says that, if a particular body issues a specific kind of advice
>> that triggers special handling by the board, that same body may not
>> also participate in any reconsideration or other community actions of
>> the board's subesquent actions. Since there is only one body that has
>> the power to issue the specific kind of advice (the GAC), that's the
>> body the rule applies to. I think it's not too much to say that, if
>> we invent future ACs that function similarly, then similar rules would
>> apply to them.
>> Best regards,
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community