[CCWG-ACCT] The GAC made me do it

Burr, Becky Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
Mon Feb 22 13:53:48 UTC 2016


Responses in line

J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

From: "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
Date: Monday, February 22, 2016 at 8:13 AM
To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
Cc: "steve.crocker at icann.org<mailto:steve.crocker at icann.org>" <steve.crocker at icann.org<mailto:steve.crocker at icann.org>>, "icann-board at icann.org<mailto:icann-board at icann.org>" <icann-board at icann.org<mailto:icann-board at icann.org>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] The GAC made me do it

Dear Kavouss, dear Becky

Thanks so much!

>From the responses I received, it seems that the carve-out applies generally whenever there is a Board decision to implement GAC Advice, even when that Board decision is deemed by the IRP to be perfectly consistent with ICANN Bylaws.

Hence, we should be clear that there is no relation between the carve-out and the consistency with the Bylaws, right? Reasons for bringing such a challenge can be purely based on different interests, right?

No, the carve out reflects the principle that we have discussed at great length.  The GAC should not have the authority BOTH to force the Board to the negotiating table at any time over any issues and to block community challenge of the results of those Board/GAC negotiations.  The status of GAC Advice differentiates it from any other kind of advice.  I suspect that 99.9% of the time that challenge will involve an alleged bylaws violations, but maybe not.

It is just a rule that excludes the GAC from (a decisional role in) any community decision where a Board decision to implement GAC Advice is at stake.

Correct, it bars the GAC from participating as a decision-maker in a discussion of a decision to use one of the community powers in that situation.

A further question: if such a Board decision is based both on a SO recommendation, an ALAC advice and a GAC Advice, the only entity to be excluded from a community process would be the GAC, right? But the other SO and AC would participate on both tracks, correct?

I’ve provided my views on this several times Jorge.  Please refer to my email about why GAC Advice is different from a PDP.

As to the threshold question: it merely has to do with the Board recall, but does not affect any of the mentioned characteristics of the carve-out, correct?

The Boards concern is only about lowering the threshold to 3 in the context of Board recall.

Thanks very much for any further guidance

Best

Jorge


Von: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz]
Gesendet: Montag, 22. Februar 2016 14:00
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>; kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
Cc: steve.crocker at icann.org<mailto:steve.crocker at icann.org>; icann-board at icann.org<mailto:icann-board at icann.org>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The GAC made me do it

Jorge-

The carve out would apply but you would need 4 SO/AC s to recall the Board.

Becky

J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office:+1.202.533.2932  Mobile:+1.202.352.6367 /neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

From: "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
Date: Monday, February 22, 2016 at 6:44 AM
To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
Cc: "steve.crocker at icann.org<mailto:steve.crocker at icann.org>" <steve.crocker at icann.org<mailto:steve.crocker at icann.org>>, "icann-board at icann.org<mailto:icann-board at icann.org>" <icann-board at icann.org<mailto:icann-board at icann.org>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The GAC made me do it

Dear Kavouss

Thanks for the clarification.

Hence, do I understand correctly that the carve-out (exclusion of GAC as decisional participant) applies also if the Board decision to implement GAC Advice has been found by the IRP to be perfectly consistent with the Bylaws?

Thanks for your guidance

Regards

Jorge

Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
Gesendet: Montag, 22. Februar 2016 12:41
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
Cc: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>; Steve Crocker <steve.crocker at icann.org<mailto:steve.crocker at icann.org>>; 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>>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The GAC made me do it

Dear Jorge,
You are right
The carve out applies to all cases either in application of IRP or in the absence of IRP
For the first Board's agreed with reduced threshold from 4 to 3 for Board's Spill
For the second the Board wishes that the 4 SO/AC threshold applies .
Some people in the community like me fully supportting the Board's views.
Some others are against
This is one of the issue that must be resolved tomorrow
Regards
Kavouss

2016-02-22 12:25 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>:

Dear all



>From this email by Milton it seems that some (as Milton) are understanding that the carve-out only would apply if the Board decision to implement GAC Advice is found (by the IRP I guess) to be inconsistent with the Bylaws.



I have been away for one week, but I feel that the carve-out was meant to apply generally to situations where there is Board implementation of GAC Advice...



Could someone kindly clarify the status?



Best regards



Jorge



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: 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>] Im Auftrag von Mueller, Milton L
Gesendet: Sonntag, 21. Februar 2016 23:34
An: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker at icann.org<mailto:steve.crocker at icann.org>>; Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Cc: Icann-board ICANN <icann-board at icann.org<mailto:icann-board at icann.org>>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The GAC made me do it



Steve

I think Andrew got the issue exactly right. I do not see how your answer even engages with his argument, which is that nearly all of the community has agreed that when board actions are challenged for being out of mission by following GAC advice, that the GAC should not be in a position to rule on that.



Claiming that the GAC does not have "extraordinary power" does not answer Andrew's argument. Whether the GAC has extraordinary power or not, if it advises you (the board) to do something that the rest of the community thinks is outside of the bounds of the bylaws (which it has a demonstrated tendency to do) the GAC should not be a decisional member of the empowered community that decides whether we get to challenge that action.



>From that premise on, it is all arithmetic, as Andrew showed:



> > 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.



You have not refuted this, as I said before you have not even engaged with this.

This increases my suspicion that the board's position is based on a political calculus, not on good governance or accountability criteria.



Further, it is clear from the reaction you have gotten that the board is not proposing a "friendly amendment." In these rules of procedure, a friendly amendment has to be accepted by the group that proposed it, and clearly it is not.



I am deeply disturbed by the board upsetting a consensual compromise, and a very difficult one, for the third time in this process. I wonder if you have any appreciation of the potential costs of this, particularly when it involves an issue as sensitive as the role of national governments in ICANN.



Dr. Milton L. Mueller

Professor, School of Public Policy

Georgia Institute of Technology





_______________________________________________

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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=XVtvuvhpcijNtwUTpzlMWx5DtxW5ZF_9xS4V4ATYIOw&s=LQQYd1TqTMcwy8i-BXekAWw5RpkRXN7uVMzD9pyLdPg&e=>

_______________________________________________
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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=XVtvuvhpcijNtwUTpzlMWx5DtxW5ZF_9xS4V4ATYIOw&s=LQQYd1TqTMcwy8i-BXekAWw5RpkRXN7uVMzD9pyLdPg&e=>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160222/8dbbaa4c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list