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

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue Feb 2 17:06:58 UTC 2016

You gave opened the Entire Recs 1 and 11 for discussion
Good luck
I do not  think that was the issue given to the devoted group.
If every body to be intentionally and expressly confused then the two above-mentioned RECs.  to be opened entirely.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 2 Feb 2016, at 17:14, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:24:58PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>> 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,
> I am not exactly sure which "the issue" we're talking about here,
> because it seems to me there are multiple interlocking issues:
>    (a) the threshold at which the Board will need to
>    vote/agree/whatever if it is to decide not to accept GAC consensus
>    advice;
>    (b) exactly how the board concludes that some advice from the GAC
>    is in fact GAC consensus;
>    (c) whether the GAC gets to be part of the decision-making at
>    ICANN or remains merely advisory;
>    (d) if GAC is part of the decision-making, whether it gets to
>    participate in decisions affecting board decisions about GAC
>    advice taken under item (b).
> Here's what I think is going on:
> On (a), we had previous proposals for the existing threshold (50%+1)
> and a higher threshold (2/3).  Some have asserted that the 2/3
> threshold is the GAC's position at Dublin, but in reviewing the
> materials I cannot find the proof of that.  The 2/3 level was put in
> draft 3 subject conditions on (b).  Some of the comments on draft 3
> have argued that without changes at least to (d), the draft 3 proposal
> is no good.  Others seem to have argued that anything above 50%+1 is
> not allowed (I think this is a position that has been attributed to
> the GNSO lately).  And finally, you propose to split the difference
> and set it at 60%, which with the current numbers of the board
> assuming all are present means just one additional vote.
> On (b), draft 3 set the mechanism at the historical meaning of
> consensus that the board could use in making its determination.
> Previously, that had appeared controversial, and it was the adjustment
> to language that, it seemed to me, cause the "US Thanksgiving
> compromise" to be reached.  That compromise was apparently not
> durable, but nobody now seems to be arguing that the board's criteria
> for considering something "GAC consensus advice" ought to be anything
> than full consensus with no formal objection.  I hope we can leave
> this alone, but I think Malcolm's line of argument basically goes to
> this item.
> (c) is something that only the GAC can say, and it's vexing (as Becky
> pointed out) that we don't yet seem to have an answer from the GAC.  I
> think at bottom it is this change to which Robin regularly objects, at
> least if I understand her arguments.
> (d) is the issue that Becky's proposal is designed to solve.
> Basically, her proposal is that, if the GAC decides to issue advice
> that would trigger (a), then it's not allowed to invoke its ability to
> do (c) as well.  This has nothing to do with the threshold in (a).
> Instead, it's a branching function: which path does the GAC choose?
> Since only the GAC has the ability to choose one or the other, the
> rules only apply to the GAC; but I think they could in principle apply
> to any body that had this ability.
>> Based on that assumption I could agree to take Beck's proposal as an alternative ,
> As you see from the above, your proposal and Becky's are not
> alternatives, but are mutually independent lines of argument.
> 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

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list