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

Burr, Becky Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
Fri Jan 29 21:04:41 UTC 2016 

I do not believe that the Board has an affirmative obligation to sit down
with any other SO or AC to find a “mutually acceptable solution” to
anything


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, 4:00 PM, "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch"
<Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

>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-co
>>>mm
>>> 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-c
>>>ro
>>> ss-community-bounces at icann.org>
>>> 
>>>[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accounta
>>>bi
>>> 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-com
>>>mu
>>> 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-Com
>>>mu
>>> nity at icann.org>
>>> 
>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>>n_
>>> 
>>>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>>lU
>>> 
>>>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujBr31
>>>se
>>> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e=
>>> 
>>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm
>>>an
>>> 
>>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
>>>_l
>>> 
>>>ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZ
>>>qi
>>> 
>>>SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> 
>>>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com
>>>mu
>>> nity at icann.org>
>>> 
>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>>n_
>>> 
>>>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>>lU
>>> 
>>>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujBr31
>>>se
>>> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e=
>>> 
>>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm
>>>an
>>> 
>>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
>>>_l
>>> 
>>>ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZ
>>>qi
>>> 
>>>SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> 
>>>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com
>>>mu
>>> nity at icann.org>
>>> 
>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>>n_
>>> 
>>>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>>lU
>>> 
>>>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujBr31
>>>se
>>> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e=
>>> 
>>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm
>>>an
>>> 
>>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC
>>>_l
>>> 
>>>ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZ
>>>qi
>>> 
>>>SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> 
>>>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com
>>>mu
>>> nity at icann.org>
>>> 
>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>>n_
>>> 
>>>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>>lU
>>> 
>>>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujBr31
>>>se
>>> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e=
>>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list