[CCWG-ACCT] Clarification

Sat Feb 20 03:33:19 UTC 2016

Dear Steve,
Thank you very much for your wuise thinking
I tend to agree with the following statement that you made

*"WIithin the Board we debated vigorously.  There was really no question
about what was right: the threshold should remain at four.  (Well, several
people within the Board also said that these cases should never actually
happen because the Board should gather enough information ahead of time to
know the sense of the community, but we’re not talking about practice; this
discussion is about eventualities in the extreme.)  The only real question
we wrestled with was whether an upside down rule that treated the GAC worse
than everyone else and did so only when the Board was acting WITHIN its
mission was important enough to deal with at this late stage.  Ultimately,
a strong majority of us felt it was not acceptable to pass along to our
successors a rule we felt was clearly incorrect and one that conveyed a
strong negative message that the role of the GAC was being downgraded".*
REGARDS
kAVOUSS

2016-02-20 3:15 GMT+01:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> I'd like to propose another way of framing this issue.
>
> I think people are speaking about this as though the threshold is
> changing.  But it may be that what is changing is the number of
> possible actors.
>
> The only case we are talking about is the one where the GAC -- not
> the community or anyone else -- has decided in effect to remove itself
> from the Empowered Community.  If the GAC wishes to act in the mode in
> which it gets to give special advice to the Board, and in which the
> Board must then engage with the GAC (and not everyone else) directly,
> then in effect the GAC takes itself out of the Empowered Community and
> acts in its specal GAC-advice role.
>
> In that case, the number of possible community participants in the
> process is a total of four.  At the moment, there are seven total
> logically-possible participants.  Two of them have already excluded
> themselves.  That leaves a total possible number of five.  But if the
> GAC decides that it wants special access to give advice to the board,
> then the "carve out" says that the GAC doesn't get to participate in
> the Empowered Community on that issue.
>
> This is a choice entirely within the GAC's power.  It must choose.  If
> it chooses to be board-advisor-GAC, then it is in effect choosing that
> it prefers that mode of operation to being part of the wider Empowered
> Community mechanism.  In effect, a GAC choice can reduce the possible
> actors in the Empowered Community to four.  Otherwise, the GAC is in a
> position to insist on advice it gave being considered first by the
> board, and then that the GAC can also participate in the judgement of
> the Board's actions.  That's the very "two bites" problem that we were
> trying to solve.  I believe that in most organizations (including many
> governments), it would be regarded as surprising that a participant in
> the to-be-judged action also gets to be one of the judges.
>
> Now, I believe there's been a long-standing principle that unanimity
> of the community not be required to exercise the community powers.
> Therefore, the only possible number of SOs and ACs left as the number
> for action is three.
>
> Viewed this way, it makes no difference at all whether there is an
> IRP, whether one is possible, whether anyone claims there is a
> violation of the mission, or anything else, because there are only
> four possible actors.  One fewer than four is three, and that's how we
> get to a threshold of three.
>
> I understand why people are uncomfortable with such a small number of
> participating SOs and ACs making such a serious decision -- I am too
> -- but it is a consequence of the way this community has decided to
> organize itself, and the decisions of some ACs as to whether they
> participate in the Empowered Community.  Once we accept that model of
> organization, it's very hard for me to see how the threshold we're
> talking about is not a logical consequence.  And after all, the many
> practical barriers to action and rather long process for removing the
> board are there precisely to allow rational discussion and negotiation
> of settlements to happen.
>
> Those who complain that the GAC is somehow being singled out are, in
> my opinion, making an argument that does not stand up even to casual
> scrutiny.  If the GAC wants to participate in the same way as every
> other SO and AC, then there is no difference whatever in how it will
> be treated.  The GAC has instead asked that its historic ability to
> give certain kinds of priority advice to the board be maintained.  And
> so it is, but with the rule that if the GAC wants to be special then
> it has to be special in other ways too.  The "unfair treatment"
> argument is basically one that the GAC ought to be special all the
> time.  I'm sorry, but that's not how community-driven organizations
> work.
>
> Moreover, if the situation is really the corner-case of a corner-case
> that many seem to be arguing, then the practical consequences are not
> significant anyway; and we are having an argument that might upend
> everything we have worked so hard to achieve even though there is no
> real problem to solve.  I don't really care how this is resolved, to
> be honest, because I'm way more interested in getting _something_
> everyone can live with.  Still, I'm having a hard time constructing a
> reasonable argument for the board's position.  I think it is time to
> end this seeming-unending discussion, and move ahead with the
> admittedly imperfect compromises that have been hammered out over many
> months.
>
> Finally, I must note that the IANA transition is waiting on us, and we
> are way past the time when we can be debating these substantive
> issues.  If we blow the transition because some people want special
> treatment all the time, I fear very much for the legitimacy of ICANN's
> claims (as a community) to be a responsible steward of IANA functions.
> For me, it is very hard to predict what might happen if the transition
> fails.  But I hope it is crystal clear that the _status quo ante_ may
> not be what comes of such a failure.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> PS: As usual, I'm speaking in my individual capacity; but I think it
> important to emphasise it in this case.
>
> --
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160220/535eacb2/attachment-0001.html>