[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Fri Jan 29 04:42:04 UTC 2016
Aside from the fact that this has been hyped unnecessarily, it perhaps
would not have mattered since board hardly rejects GAC advice and perhaps
2/3 would still be achieved for an advice worthy of reject.(will be good to
know what the count was when board rejected GAC advice in the past)
However, considering the current state of discussion, I will say what this
communicates to those who don't know how ICANN board operates(which
includes Washington) is most important.
So to specifically answer your question; with a focus on just the 2/3, it
does not enhance ICANN accountability to the entire community, I see no
problem it corrects, neither do I see it as requirement for transition and
I am neutral on whether it's a good idea as I believe the board should be
the main decider of that.
My comments are my personal opinion as an end-user(AtLarge member) who
happens to wish that advisory committees are given equal attention.
On 29 Jan 2016 12:24 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> 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.
> [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
>> 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,
>>> Andrew Sullivan
>>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community