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

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Fri Jan 29 18:05:36 UTC 2016


Thank you all,
Many of you have misunderstood the GAC prevailing situation.
Current Balaws with which we jhave lived is the best .Forget about the
other alternative that GAC would have double negative POINTS VIS A VIS
OTHER so /AC
Regards
Kavouss


2016-01-29 18:50 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>:

> Greg:
>
> It was clear from the earlier (pre-transition) process that there was
> virtually no positive support outside GAC for the proposition that the
> board could only reject its advice with a 2/3 majority. There was, in fact,
> overwhelming opposition to the 2/3 threshold.
>
> Insofar as that idea gained acceptance (not support), it was perceived as
> a compromise that would help the GAC to accept a requirement that it
> continue to act on the basis of UN consensus.
>
>
>
> So I think the answer to your question, “is there any affirmative support
> for the 2/3 threshold?” outside the GAC is clearly no.
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg
> Shatan
> *Sent:* Friday, January 29, 2016 11:58 AM
> *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC
> consensus, and finishing
>
>
>
> 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 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160129/22834fb9/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list