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

Drazek, Keith kdrazek at verisign.com
Fri Jan 29 20:31:31 UTC 2016

Hi Andrew,

The Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) would likely support this approach. The RySG said it could accept 2/3 if the 3 criteria included in our comments were incorporated, and they appear to be. Becky's suggestion builds on those comments and criteria. That said, the RySG position on Recommendation 11 and the 2/3 threshold has turned out to be a minority view in the GNSO.

I can't speak for the other GNSO groups.


-----Original Message-----
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 3:24 PM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 08:05:14PM +0000, Burr, Becky wrote:
> 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.

I think this is a super-constructive idea because it addresses a specific objection that some have raised (including in the public
comments) to the proposal that was in draft 3.  I'd be very interested to hear the views of those plugged into the GNSO as to whether this additional restriction would possibly address the concerns we hear from there, especially taking into account the Empowered Community under the additional restriction Becky proposes.  For the same reasons, I'd be very keen to hear the views of those who have been pressing hard the "2/3 view" as one that the GAC is mostly aligned behind.

Mostly, I am strongly supportive of an approach that clearly shows everyone compromising to hammer out a reasonably stable compromise that allows a broad cross-section of the Internet-interested population to support the arrangement (regardless of what the official organs are able to state as an official constituency position).

Best regards,


PS: I acknowledge Malcolm's argument that the GAC could still, under this formulation, indeed redefine "no objection" in the (IMO strained) ways he outlined in his earlier response to me.  I think the board would still under the formulation in draft 3 be free to reject such advice on the grounds that it didn't really believe the "no objection"
claim.  (I also wonder about the practical dynamics in the GAC under which such a scenario happens, but I recognise that, when one is writing what is effectively constitutional language, one has to write for cases one can't imagine.

Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list