[CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues

Edward Morris egmorris1 at toast.net
Fri Feb 5 18:22:36 UTC 2016

Well put Paul.

> On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:19, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
> Dear Andrew
> I agree with you completely.  I'm not sure, though, why  you bother (except
> to create a record, I guess).  There have been, by my count, more than a
> dozen substantive emails (Mike C; Becky; Keith; Ed M; you) that outline the
> very real differences between the NSO processes (and particularly the PDP
> process) and the way in which GAC advice is developed (to the extent we know
> it, since the GAC is not very transparent).  
> There have, likewise, been a similar number of emails pointing out that the
> GAC's privileged position with the Board in compelled negotiation is unique
> to the GAC and that a concomitant check on the GAC's ability to forestall
> the remainder of the community is appropriate and necessary.  Yet nobody
> from the GAC has ever suggested that perhaps the way to solve their problem
> with the "carve out" is to give up their ability to compel the Board to
> negotiate.
> We have, in fact, repeated these points ad infinitum.  It isn't that the
> minority of GAC members who are vocally opposing this on the list don't
> =really= understand or appreciate these distinctions.  Of course they do.
> They are all very intelligent and thoughtful diplomats who represent their
> country's interests ably.  It is simply that they (or more accurately, their
> political masters) disagree with the result, want more governmental power,
> and are attempting to avoid it by obfuscation and by erecting artificial,
> non-existent procedural hurdles.
> Paul
> Paul Rosenzweig
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> Link to my PGP Key
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com] 
> Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 12:58 PM
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11
> issues
> Dear Jorge,
>> On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 05:03:15PM +0000, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch wrote:
>> such a obligation to chose (only for the GAC) was never in any CCWG draft
> report.
> Of course this has not appeard in any previous draft report.  It is a clever
> new compromise that's being proposed to address previous apparently
> irreconcilable goals.  If we restrict ourselves strictly only to what has
> appeared in any of the previous drafts, we will be unable to find the
> compromise necessary to deliver the CCWG-Accountability's task.  That would,
> I think, be fatal to the IANA transition.  It also, I think, would in the
> long run desperately weaken ICANN.  I don't see how any of that is a winning
> strategy, so I think finding a way to compromise is needed.
>> It is inconsistent with the multistakeholder model and the principle 
>> of equal footing.
> I don't see how.  The GAC has always behaved differently than other
> stakeholder constituencies in ICANN, and the proposal formalises that role.
> It allows GAC to have a choice: behave like everyone else, and then
> participate in the equal footing you call out; or else behave in a way
> different to other constituency groups, and then be treated differently too.
> The analogy you have drawn with the *NSO is not apt, for two reasons.
> First, the NSOs (and particularly the GNSO) members have direct operational
> stake in the outcome of PDPs.  Second, PDPs have a great deal of process
> associated with them before they render decisions, and that process includes
> a lot of public consultation.  The same is not true of GAC advice.  A more
> apt analogy to the GAC would be other ACs, and it seems to me that those ACs
> already labour under the same rules as the GAC would in case it decided not
> to take the "formal GAC advice" path.  That really does follow the principle
> of equal footing.
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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