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

Fri Jan 29 17:37:01 UTC 2016

If some of us push to disagree with 2/3 that may be considered as inflexibility while the majority accept the compromise.As I mentioned on the call retention of 2/3 may encourage the GAC to possibly agree to ST11.
If that happens it would be great. However insistence of few people and miscalculation / misinterpretation of GNSO would have a very severe  negative consequences on IANA TRANSITION.
Those opponents will be held responsible for that defeat
Regards
Kavouss        

Sent from my iPhone

> On 29 Jan 2016, at 17:58, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Alan,
> 
> I think you misunderstand the question.  Of course ALAC has decided to join a position supported by the bulk of the other participants, even where it did not really agree with that position.  Every stakeholder and stakeholder structure has done that, here (and in every other WG, I assume), to avoid being an outlier and to honor the building of consensus.  This is the usual move at some point in the consensus-building process, when dealing with a position that has broad multistakeholder support.
> 
> But this virtually always starts with a position that already has significant multistakeholder support.
> 
> I am honestly unclear whether the 2/3 proposal, on its own, has broad multistakeholder support.  I could jump to conclusions, but I prefer not to.  Hence the question, which I think is quite relevant.  First, if I go back to my constituency and tell them that we are the outlier and this has broad multistakeholder support, that may be persuasive to some of them, committed as we are to consensus-driven processes.  Second, I think it is relevant to understand the context of this particular position, isolated from discussions of the value of compromise and other such things.
> 
> Greg
>   
> 
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>> Greg, 
>> 
>> That is a simple question, but not a particularly relevant one in my mind. I and ALAC have accepted a LOT of things that we do not believe "is a good idea, or enhances ICANN's accountability, or corrects a problem/deficiency in the Bylaws, or is needed for the transition". So have other parts of the community. 
>> 
>> I would ask the opposite. What is the HARM? The overall number of times that GAC advice is rejected is small. I find it hard to imagine that there will be any substantive difference in outcomes in the future with the two alternatives. If people want to die in the ditch (so to speak) over the difference, I guess that is what will happen. 
>> 
>> Alan
>> 
>> At 28/01/2016 06:24 PM, Greg Shatan 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 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 communiqÃ©.  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 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20160129/71674e1c/attachment-0001.html>