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

[Greg Shatan]

Milton,

I agree with your assessment of the situation, and I think you are likely
correct about the answer to my question.  I wanted to see if I had
overlooked positive support for the 2/3 majority as such.  It appears that
(subject to further responses) I have not.

Greg

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160129/e68eef26/attachment.html>