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 Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@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@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 3:24 PM To: accountability-cross-community@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, A 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 imagine. -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community