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

Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
Fri Jan 29 00:30:23 UTC 2016

Great question Greg.  Especially since the answer is both obvious and compelling.
Paul Rosenzweig
Sent from myMail app for Android Thursday, 28 January 2016, 06:24PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc at gmail.com> :

>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.
>[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 .
>>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...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160129/b3ec0f62/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list