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

[Avri Doria]

I agree with the sentiments in this note.
I too support the compromise that was made.

I do not see this compromise as heralding an increase in Government
control and appreciate the irony of "So we can yield to one government
(without protesting) as long as it is the US? "

avri


On 29-Jan-16 09:20, Roelof Meijer 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.
>  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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus