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

Fri Jan 29 18:23:03 UTC 2016

The logical problem is to pick and chose parts of a package deal and ask whether such discrete parts are acceptable or not. This just ignores that the deal is composed by its different parts - and logically some please and displease differently different parts of the community.

And as said before, from the chartering orgs there is just one partially objecting to this. And the numbers of the public comment period speak for themselves in accepting this as a workable compromise.

regards

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 29.01.2016 um 18:46 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>:

Roelof,

You answered the question I expressly said I wasn't asking -- "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 think you *almost* answered the question I did ask, when you said " Not because I think it is a great idea, though I do not think it is a bad idea either."  So it seems you do not affirmatively support the concept as such.

I asked the question I asked not because I am immune to the value of compromise or ignorant of the many ways that consensus is achieved.  Rather, I asked it because I feel that the "base of support" for this proposal is unclear and it is relevant to our ability to move forward, one way or the other.

Greg

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>> wrote:
Greg, all,

Although I agree with Alan that it is probably not the right question, I’ll answer it. And my answer is: Yes, I do support the 2/3 threshold. Not because I think it is a great idea, though I do not think it is a bad idea either.
No, my affirmative support is based on the fact that this is part of a negotiation, a compromise, where –if we do not want to get stuck in our trenches for the remainder of time- parties will have to move, concede some to the other parties.
So the problem it solves is the present deadlock, it is needed for a successful transition, supported by the GAC. And I do not believe in conspiracy thinking; the risk is minimal. We already have accepted similar and larger risks.

I have worked in many countries and have learnt both that it’s dangerous to alienate governments and that it can be very productive to work with them in a strategically clever way. When SIDN voluntarily signed a convenant with the Dutch government under my lead in 2008, many of my international peers told me I was crazy to allow government involvement. It would be the beginning of a process that would ultimately lead to government control/takeover. I can now easily prove them wrong. Self-regulation prevailed and .nl is one of the most successful, open, unregulated and safest ccTLDs.

What puzzles me (not intending to accuse anybody) is that is seems that many are saying that by agreeing to this, we would be ceding to governments, which we should not do. And one of the arguments they use, is that the US government would never agree to this and the transition would fail.
So we can yield to one government (without protesting) as long as it is the US? It seems that this argument is mainly used by American nationals. Probably because the logic is less obvious to those from other countries.

Best,

Roelof

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Date: vrijdag 29 januari 2016 00:24
To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community