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

Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Fri Jan 29 21:09:21 UTC 2016 

Isn't it so that any guidance or PDP adopted by 2/3 by the GNSO must be adopted by the Board? 

Isn't that even more than an advice which can always be finally rejected?

best

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

> Am 29.01.2016 um 22:05 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>:
> 
> 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