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

Burr, Becky Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
Fri Jan 29 20:20:42 UTC 2016


Jorge, I don¹t understand the concept of neutral application given the
fact that the GAC has a special status that other SO/ACs don¹t have (Board
must engage in effort to find a mutually acceptable solution regarding GAC
Advice) 



J. Beckwith Burr 
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy
General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz
<http://www.neustar.biz>




On 1/29/16, 3:08 PM, "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch"
<Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

>Would that be applicable in SO/AC-neutral terms?
>
>Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>
>Am 29.01.2016 um 21:06 schrieb Burr, Becky
><Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>:
>
>I have a proposal for discussion.
>
>Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only
>consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission.  What if we accept the
>2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC cannot act in a
>decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power
>designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.  In other
>words, the GAC  would not be counted in the ³no more than two SO/ACs
>objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board¹s
>implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN¹s
>Mission.
>
>I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might
>otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the 2/3rds
>rejection threshold.
>
>Just a thought -
>J. Beckwith Burr
>Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
>1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
>Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 /
>neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
>
>From: Greg Shatan 
><gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>Date: Friday, January 29, 2016 at 2:38 PM
>To: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
>Cc: Accountability Community
><accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm
>unity at icann.org>>
>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC
>consensus, and finishing
>
>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<mailto: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, ³is there any affirmative support
>for the 2/3 threshold?² outside the GAC is clearly no.
>
>From: 
>accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro
>ss-community-bounces at icann.org>
>[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountabi
>lity-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<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>
>Cc: 
>accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-commu
>nity 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<mailto: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<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-Commu
>nity at icann.org>
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU
>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujBr31se
>8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e=
><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_l
>ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqi
>SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu
>nity at icann.org>
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU
>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujBr31se
>8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e=
><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_l
>ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqi
>SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu
>nity at icann.org>
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU
>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujBr31se
>8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e=
><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_l
>ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqi
>SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu
>nity at icann.org>
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU
>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujBr31se
>8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e= 



More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list