[CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out

Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
Fri Feb 19 17:41:05 UTC 2016

Just to lay down a marker, so that silence is not taken as assent, this
proposal from the Board is completely unacceptable to me and I suspect to
most if not all of the gNSO.

Right now I am so angry at the Board's last minute interference that if I
say anything further it will be far too intemperate. 

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: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve.crocker at icann.org] 
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 11:28 AM
To: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
<leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>; Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>
Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker at icann.org>; Icann-board ICANN
<icann-board at icann.org>; Accountability Community
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out

CCWG Colleagues,

The Board has a serious and continued concern about the issues being raised
that may result in the reduction of the GAC’s ability to participate in
community decision making. This is most noticeable in the question of
thresholds for board removal, however this is not an issue about removal or
even thresholds, it is one part of the community being (or perceiving that
it is being) sidelined. The Board’s concerns with this issue are not about
Board removal, but about maintaining the balanced multistakeholder model.  

The Board is against any changes to the long established equilibrium and
fairness among the different stakeholders within ICANN. The Board has long
supported a threshold of four participants for Board removal in the ultimate
escalation method proposed by the CCWG.  Selecting one portion of the ICANN
community and removing them from the equation - just through the ability to
say that the community is unhappy with the acceptance of GAC advice that is
within ICANN’s bylaws - raises significant concerns about how the
multistakeholder model, and the ultimate stability of ICANN as an
organization, can be maintained. This carved out exception undercuts the
established role of governments within the multi stakeholder process, and
could introduce new issues with the acceptance of ICANN’s model undermining
the work of the CCWG.  

We understand that there are concerns with this path from within other parts
of ICANN community, including members of the GAC and ALAC. The best course,
in our opinion, would be a careful and objective discussion of the whole
matter of how advice from ALL parties is appropriately considered within
ICANN.  If there is a graceful way to remove this matter from the immediate
pressure of the deadline of submitting this proposal and make it a priority
matter for either the implementation phase or Work Stream 2, we think there
will be a solution which is genuinely good for everyone.

We encourage you to share the CCWG’s proposal with the Chartering
Organizations while the dialog on this outstanding point continues.

Thank you,

Steve Crocker
Chair, ICANN Board of Directors

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list