[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing

Fri Jan 29 01:55:54 UTC 2016

 An exceptional question Greg.

 I'll take it further: given the lack of transparency within the GAC we have no way of knowing what level of support the 2/3 threshold has within the GAC itself. It could be lots, it could be a few very loud GAC members. We don't know.

 I see people saying we need to accept it as part of a compromise. With whom? The community rejected this identical proposal a little over a year ago ( https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en). So now we're compromising. Is it a compromise with a few GAC members, most GAC members, it appears to be not all GAC members. Have other community groups changed their negative views on this idea since late 2014? If so, why?

 Let's not forget that in addition to being arguably the least transparent SOAC, recommendation 10 as proposed in the third draft report exempts the GAC from the same accountability reviews the other SOACs will undergo. The Board has agreed to tremendous changes in their transparency. I salute them. The GAC? I'm Catholic, so I'm use to waiting for white smoke to appear from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel. I'm just not sure that's a good model to be used by a central component of the bottom up multi-stakeholder governance model we're trying to create.

 Of course the GAC does have something to say about their accountability:
 .
"In this context, the GAC underlines that its members are representatives of governments of sovereign states that are accountable to their citizens,"

 Wish that were true. I can think of many countries where the citizens would like to hold their governments accountable but their authoritarian rulers have other ideas. Even within countries where the rulers are bit more considerate towards their citizens the opaqueness of the GAC makes it impossible for their citizens to know what is really going on. 

 Who actually supports these ideas outside of a few very vocal, very valued members of the GAC? I don't mean willing to go along with it because it quiets some folks down, but actually thinks these are good ideas? This recommendation was adopted in a straw poll in a call of some CCWG members and participants, a pool of voters that was not in my view representative of the CCWG or of the community as a whole. Any chance of a vote of members?

 The combination of recommendations 1, 10 and 11 is just too much of a concession to the GAC, or some members thereof,  for  many of us in the GNSO to support them as a package. 

 Finally, as a citizen of both the United States of America and of Ireland I respectfully and publicly request the views of my governments and their representatives on recommendations 1, 10 and 11. If, as the GAC has stated, "its members are representatives of governments of sovereign states that are accountable to their citizens" I'm sure you would be happy to share your views on these recommendations with me so that I can hold you accountable said views, whatever they may be.

 Thank you,

 Edward Morris 

----------------------------------------
 From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 11:26 PM
To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing   
  I'd like to ask a simple question.

 Aside from members of the GAC, is there any affirmative support for the 2/3 threshold?  In other words, does any member or participant think that this is a good idea, or enhances ICANN's accountability, or corrects a problem/deficiency in the Bylaws, or is needed for the transition? How about any chartering organization or constituent part of a chartering organization?

 I'm not asking about the value of compromise, or the effect (or lack thereof) of the change, or whether it's something you can live with.  I'm asking about affirmative support.

 Greg

 [cross-posts to GAC list removed]

   On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:    GAC did not formally reject the Rec 11 in announcing that " no consensus is reached " GNSO and its spokemen push for their objection, GAC must formally reject the Recommendation as currently GAC lost o-1 because of Stress Test 18 ,if such ST remains and 2/ 3 supermajority becomes Simple Majority then GAC would loose o-2 .That is not fair .There should not win loose against GAC,
 WIN-WIN YES, loose-loose yes ,for every body BUT NOT LOOSE FOR gac and win for the others .
 THAT IS NOT FAIR
 Kavouss   

     2016-01-28 23:45 GMT+01:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>:  On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:26:54PM +0000, Jeff Neuman wrote:
> Where in writing has the GAC stated that it will reject the accountability proposal of the 2/3 threshold is not in there.

I didn't intend to suggest that they'd stated that in writing, but
rather to suggest that the GAC had consensus around the 2/3 number.
But this'll teach me to go from memory, because I was relying on my
recollection of the Dublin communiqé.  In fact it does not exactly say
that the GAC has consensus about the 2/3 threshold, so I'm wrong.

I still believe that the compromise position is an effective way
forward that actually gives no additional real power to the GAC
(because of the new Empowered Community) while yet granting the 2/3
number that many seem to think is important.  But the claim in favour
of 2/3 is indeed weaker given the GAC's stated positions.  
Best regards,

A

--
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

_______________________________________________
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/20160128/27cc0078/attachment.html>