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

Sat Jan 30 18:20:48 UTC 2016

I am merely a participant 
I want to applaud Roelof's comments. 
Let's not think, as some seem to be doing, that  alienating a single government is less important than leaving aside all the governments who have come into the GAC at ICANN.
Really.
When I worked to bring forward an alternative to the GTLD MOU, it was so much that no single government could in the future be the 'guru'. 
All of us have made that so.
I respect that many governments have come into the GAC and they made it so much more than it was, in its original days. I also note that we, as stakeholders, must also step up our game.ICANN is a critical player. It must be guided by all of us. 
the larger stage needs for us to succeed in our quite unique approach to MS. We are not a sole model.BUT we have work that is important. 
I live in awe of how the governments, technical community, contracted parties, and non contracted parties and business users are doing this work. 
Nothing has ever been this fully representative. 
I did play role in the original IFWP. that was so different [let's be real/less than 400 M users]  and you are so much more than that could ever be.
I find this work that you are doing a true role model.
M

From: Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl
To: gregshatanipc at gmail.com; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 14:20:48 +0000
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing

Greg, all,

Although I agree with Alan that it is probably not the right question, I’ll answer it. And my answer is: Yes, I do support the 2/3 threshold. Not because I think it is a great idea, though I do not think it is a bad idea either.
No, my affirmative support is based on the fact that this is part of a negotiation, a compromise, where –if we do not want to get stuck in our trenches for the remainder of time- parties will have to move, concede some to the other parties.
So the problem it solves is the present deadlock, it is needed for a successful transition, supported by the GAC. And I do not believe in conspiracy thinking; the risk is minimal. We already have accepted similar and larger risks.

I have worked in many countries and have learnt both that it’s dangerous to alienate governments and that it can be very productive to work with them in a strategically clever way. When SIDN voluntarily signed a convenant with the Dutch government under
 my lead in 2008, many of my international peers told me I was crazy to allow government involvement. It would be the beginning of a process that would ultimately lead to government control/takeover. I can now easily prove them wrong. Self-regulation prevailed
 and .nl is one of the most successful, open, unregulated and safest ccTLDs.

What puzzles me (not intending to accuse anybody) is that is seems that many are saying that by agreeing to this, we would be ceding to governments, which we should not do. And one of the arguments they use, is that the US government would never agree
 to this and the transition would fail.
So we can yield to one government (without protesting) as long as it is the US? It seems that this argument is mainly used by American nationals. Probably because the logic is less obvious to those from other countries.

Best,

Roelof

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>

Date: vrijdag 29 januari 2016 00:24

To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>

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

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> 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>:

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

_______________________________________________

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list

Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list

Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160130/ba819ba3/attachment-0001.html>