[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: CCWG - recs 1,2 and 11

[Schaefer, Brett]

Andrew,

On your first point, that is a rather circuitous justification that, in my opinion, reads as an attempt to disguise what is actually happening. The bottom line is that, while the EC would strive for consensus, if it is not possible, the EC will make decisions based on the “votes” of individual decisional participants.

On your second point, the statements say that the we are “Maintaining the advisory role of governments in the SO and AC structure” and “Maintaining the advisory role of governments in the SO and AC structure, including the GAC.”

Those statements are not accurate. We are changing the role of governments in the SO AC structure by allowing them to participate in the EC. We are also changing the way the Board treats GAC consensus advice. I would not think that anyone would disagree with either of those two conclusions. Whether we are expanding the influence of governments is open to debate.

I firmly believe that this proposal as the best compromise that the community could support. But I think we should be forthright in what we are proposing.

Best,

Brett


________________________________
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<http://heritage.org/>
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 9:36 AM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: CCWG - recs 1,2 and 11

Hi,

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 01:18:11PM +0000, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
>
> In fact, the decisional model does expressly contemplate voting, i.e. tallying support or opposition among the decisional participants with specified thresholds, to climb the escalation ladder and exercise community powers.
>

I am really leery of having a discussion in which we parse the
meanings of "consensus" and "voting", but I think there is at least an
open argument that the escalation ladder and so on amounts to a way to
determine community consensus. Moreover, the specification of
thesholds are, after all, of the constituent SOs and ACs rather than
of individual voters. Having already long ago decided that decision
making in ICANN would be along constituency-defined lines (rather than
the unitary "community" that we see in, say, the IETF), it seems
self-evident that one needs a way to ensure that one interest group
can't block everyone else. So regardless of whether one thinks that
this is some form of voting, it's still a mechanism to find consensus.

> Moreover, the GAC is now a participant in the Empowered Community (albeit with the carve out) and the advisory role has been altered, not maintained, by defining GAC consensus and elevating the Board threshold to reject GAC consensus advice to 60 percent. These are significant changes.
>

But there is a difference between "letting governments participate"
and "letting governments decide". The proposal does the former -- I
think correctly, because they too are part of the global community.
It does not do the latter -- again, correctly, and in line with the
NTIA criteria.

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<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/20160212/af800332/attachment.html>