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

Fri Jan 29 21:00:32 UTC 2016

A special status which is (with the 2/3) similar to the status currently accorded to GNSO (PDP and Guidance Procedure) and CCNSO.

Best

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

> Am 29.01.2016 um 21:20 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>:
> 
> 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 communiqÃ©.  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=
> 