Hi, It may be a question that misrepresents the process. When it comes to finding consensus, acceptance and a willingness to speak out for something is an affirmation. You can consider my view point as an affirmation if those words need to be used. I think the compromise especially because it includes a commitment to retain the current definition of GAC consensus, and NTIA requirement, is a good thing. I think trading 1/2 for 2/3, the equivalent used by the Board to deny a recommendation (a synonym of advice) is an irrelevant trade off. Or rather I _affirm_ that i think this is good. I would also say that in terms of most all of the issues in the current draft that we have compromised on, at best I accept them and any willingness to affirm them is based on that acceptance. avri On 29-Jan-16 14:38, Greg Shatan wrote:
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>> 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, “is there any affirmative support for the 2/3 threshold?” outside the GAC is clearly no.
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-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>> *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
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>> 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>> 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> >:
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>
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus