Surely you jest. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-declaration-2-redacted-09j.... The GAC objection to the .Africa delegation was accepted by the Board. The IRP found that interference improper under the Bylaws. From paragraph 109 of the decision: “the fact that DCA Trust was never given any notice or an opportunity in Beijing or elsewhere to make its position known or defend its own interests before the GAC reached consensus on the GAC Objection Advice, and that the Board of ICANN did not take any steps to address this issue, leads this Panel to conclude that both the actions and inactions of the Board with respect to the application of DCA Trust relating to the .AFRICA gTLD were not procedures designed to insure the fairness required by Article III, Sec. 1 above, and are therefore inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of ICANN.” You may disagree with the IRPs judgement, but to say that the GAC has never interfered with anything is categorically wrong. Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 4:34 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing Dear All, I categorically disagree that GAC has ever interferened with any thing. Regards Kavouss 2016-01-29 22:29 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> >: Jorge To answer your question directly -- No. The principle is not as you suggest it is, but rather an attempt to accommodate concerns about the unique position of the GAC. Since you don't (it seems) accept the uniqueness of the GAC's advice process you, naturally, misread the principle. If the GAC were to agree to all of the preliminary steps identified for a PDP (http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/31379/) before it issued advice I would gladly acknowledge equivalence in voting within the EC to overturn that advicce. The GAC can't of course (nor should it). All the best Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> ] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 4:12 PM To: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> ; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing Well the principle put forward by Becky, as I understand it, is to avoid that one sub-entity of ICANN (she focuses on GAC) may block a community IRP brought forward against an action of the Board which is the result of that sub-entities initiative. Is that principle not applicable to all SO/AC? why? regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 29.01.2016 um 22:06 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> >:
With respect Jorge, you keep saying that but it simply isn't true. As Keith described in some detail on the last call (and in the chat) the gNSO provisions are quite different.
Your argument is, inherently, logically inconsistent. ON the one hand, because governments "represent their citizens" (many of them don't, but let's leave that aside) their advice deserves special consideration, but because they are an AC they should be treated like other ACs or (here, you leap) other SOs. You can't really have it both ways.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> ] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 4:01 PM To: Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
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@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@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 <tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz <http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 1/29/16, 3:08 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> " <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@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@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@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 <tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz <http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >> Date: Friday, January 29, 2016 at 2:38 PM To: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu> <mailto:milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu> >> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cros <mailto:accountability-cros> s -comm unity@icann.org <mailto:unity@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@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu> <mailto:milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@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@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:accountabili <mailto:accountabili> t y-cro ss-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ss-community-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:acco <mailto:acco>
u ntabi lity-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:lity-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> >] On Behalf Of Greg
Shatan Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 11:58 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> >> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross <mailto:accountability-cross> - commu nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@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@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@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@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@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@anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@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@anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> >
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross <mailto:Accountability-Cross> - Commu nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma i lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD A LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghuj B r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk& e = <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m a ilman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETe D ALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6E o paZqi SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI &
e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross <mailto:Accountability-Cross> - Commu nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma i lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD A LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghuj B r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk& e = <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m a ilman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETe D ALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6E o paZqi SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI &
e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross <mailto:Accountability-Cross> - Commu nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma i lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD A LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghuj B r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk& e = <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m a ilman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETe D ALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6E o paZqi SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI &
e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross <mailto:Accountability-Cross> - Commu nity@icann.org <mailto:nity@icann.org> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma i lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD A LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghuj B r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk& e
=
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
