[CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out
James M. Bladel
jbladel at godaddy.com
Fri Feb 19 18:03:25 UTC 2016
Hello Kavouss and Phil -
Without comment on the substance of the most recent Board intervention, waiting until 26 FEB introduces significant challenges in the GNSO’s ability to consider and (presumably) approve the final CCWG report in Marrakesh. In fact, our schedule was extremely tight with the expected publication date of 19 FEB.
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 11:56
To: Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>
Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker at icann.org<mailto:steve.crocker at icann.org>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board at icann.org<mailto:icann-board at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out
There is a solution for the matter. Wait until 26 Feb call AND IN THE MEANTIME DISCUSS THE MATTER TO FIND A SOLUTION.
One solution would be the removal of Carve-out AND retention of the Rec. 11 before Call 80 i.e.
No CARVE-OUT CONCEPT
Two threshold options; simple majority and 2/3 super majority
Send it with that to chattering organization .In the meantime ,further discuss the matter without Carve-out with a view to opt for either of two threshold options
That was the situation at CALL 80 when Steve DelBianco submitted the draft
We hear serious objections several others would join the concerns: now 11 Governments. Those have not voiced should not necessarily be considered as have no concerns.
We made an attempt to have consensus but it does not appear to work at all
We may perhaps need to immediately change the concept as we did changing many times from Voluntary Membership to Designator Member and from Designator Member to Sole Member and from Sole Member to Sole Designator. Why we did such a gymnastic, because either it did not work or there were objections
How many time we have change the threshold of empowering community. Several times
Nothing wrong in that.
I know one So may like very much the existing formulation but several Governments from other constituency dislike it,
We cannot satisfy one on the expense of dissatisfying others.
We are all member of ICANN family and we must understand each other’s concerns
Let us make every possible effort to make people comfortable to join others.
2016-02-19 18:35 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>:
Some questions regarding this Board input at the 59th minute of the 11th hour (metaphorically speaking):
· “The Board is against any changes to the long established equilibrium and fairness among the different stakeholders within ICANN.” -- Does that mean the Board is opposed to raising the raising the threshold for rejection of GAC advice above majority vote, as that is a change in long established practice (whereas locking in a definition of GAC advice that memorializes its long established practice is not)?
· “ 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.”—What is the Board suggesting should be removed from the final Recommendations at this very late hour? And how can something be left for the implementation phase if it is removed from the Recommendations, as those involved in Bylaws drafting that is the heart of the implementation phase should have no latitude in introducing any matter that is not part of an approved Recommendation?
Your response would help clarify our understanding of this new Board position.
Best regards, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
1155 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Steve Crocker
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 11:28 AM
To: Mathieu Weill; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Thomas Rickert
Cc: Steve Crocker; Icann-board ICANN; Accountability Community
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out
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.
Chair, ICANN Board of Directors
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community