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

Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
Fri Jan 29 23:02:08 UTC 2016

I cannot speak for the gNSO, nor even Non-Commercial side of the house of
which I am a member.  But for myself, going in to yesterday I had three
significant concerns about the role of the GAC.  They were the
super-majority (2/3rd) + mandatory consultation requirements of
Recommendation 11; the GAC exclusions from review under Rec 10 and the role
of the GAC as a participant in the EC under Rec 1 (and, as to this last,
most notably the high likelihood that the GACs role in the EC would
procedurally make it difficult, if not impossible, for the community to take
action against the Board regarding GAC advice that the Board was obliged to
accept).  The stress test scenario was GAC advice that was adopted by the
Board with a 1/3rd +1 support in which the GAC frustrated EC response.

Steve DelBianco's suggestiong about folding the review of GAC interaction
with the community and its accountability into an enhanced ATRT probably
takes care of much (not all, but much) of my concern about Rec 10.

Becky's proposal that the GAC not be allowed to negate EC action as to its
own advice is a good way of addressing the problem with respect to Rec 1.  I
would broaden it, so that the exclusion applied to all EC action in respect
of GAC advice, not just the community IRP, but so broadened, it would answer
the very real concerns that Keith has outlined.

That would leave me dissatisfied as to the 2/3rd threshold itself ... but in
the spirit of compromise, I could live with my dissatisfaction.

Which leaves me in the position of basically agreeing with Andrew ....

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com] 
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

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