Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
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 <<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>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 <<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>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 <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>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
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> 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> 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 >: 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 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
If some of us push to disagree with 2/3 that may be considered as inflexibility while the majority accept the compromise.As I mentioned on the call retention of 2/3 may encourage the GAC to possibly agree to ST11. If that happens it would be great. However insistence of few people and miscalculation / misinterpretation of GNSO would have a very severe negative consequences on IANA TRANSITION. Those opponents will be held responsible for that defeat Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 29 Jan 2016, at 17:58, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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> 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> 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 >: 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 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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
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] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 11:58 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: 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
Thank you all, Many of you have misunderstood the GAC prevailing situation. Current Balaws with which we jhave lived is the best .Forget about the other alternative that GAC would have double negative POINTS VIS A VIS OTHER so /AC Regards Kavouss 2016-01-29 18:50 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>:
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] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Friday, January 29, 2016 11:58 AM *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Cc:* 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> 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> 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 >:
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
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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
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> 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] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Friday, January 29, 2016 11:58 AM *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Cc:* 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> 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> 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 >:
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
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
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 Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s 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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community <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 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=>
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>>: 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 Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s 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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community <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 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz> On 1/29/16, 3:08 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <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>>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm 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>> 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-cro ss-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabi 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>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-commu 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>> 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-Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujBr31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqi SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujBr31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqi SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujBr31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqi SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujBr31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e=
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>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 1/29/16, 3:08 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <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>>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-comm 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>> 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-cro ss-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabi 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>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-commu 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>> 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-Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujBr31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqi SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujBr31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqi SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujBr31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqi SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujBr31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e=
I do not believe that the Board has an affirmative obligation to sit down with any other SO or AC to find a “mutually acceptable solution” to anything J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz> On 1/29/16, 4:00 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
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>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 1/29/16, 3:08 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <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>>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm 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>> 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-c ro ss-community-bounces@icann.org>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accounta bi 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>> Cc:
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com mu 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>> 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-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujBr31 se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _l
ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZ qi
SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujBr31 se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _l
ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZ qi
SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujBr31 se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _l
ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZ qi
SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujBr31 se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e=
Isn't it so that any guidance or PDP adopted by 2/3 by the GNSO must be adopted by the Board? Isn't that even more than an advice which can always be finally rejected? best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 29.01.2016 um 22:05 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>:
I do not believe that the Board has an affirmative obligation to sit down with any other SO or AC to find a “mutually acceptable solution” to anything
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 1/29/16, 4:00 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
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>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 1/29/16, 3:08 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <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>>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm 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>> 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-c ro ss-community-bounces@icann.org>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accounta bi 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>> Cc:
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com mu 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>> 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-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujBr31 se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _l
ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZ qi
SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujBr31 se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _l
ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZ qi
SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujBr31 se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _l
ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZ qi
SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujBr31 se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e=
-----Original Message-----
Isn't it so that any guidance or PDP adopted by 2/3 by the GNSO must be adopted by the Board?
No, it is not. The GAC has routinely interfered with and altered GNSO guidance via its "advice."
On 29 Jan 2016 10:11 p.m., "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
Isn't it so that any guidance or PDP adopted by 2/3 by the GNSO must be adopted by the Board?
No, it is not. The GAC has routinely interfered with and altered GNSO
guidance via its "advice."
SO: Actually if this is true, I don't think its right to say GAC did this but rather that board made this happen. We cannot have a board that does not have option to decide independently be it on GAC advice/ALAC's or any other policy outcome of an SO. As far as I am concerned, the most neutral part of this community remains the board and they require adequate means of exercising that role. Regards
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
And we need to preserve the community’s ability to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice, which is what my proposal is intended to do. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, January 29, 2016 at 4:48 PM To: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing On 29 Jan 2016 10:11 p.m., "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
Isn't it so that any guidance or PDP adopted by 2/3 by the GNSO must be adopted by the Board?
No, it is not. The GAC has routinely interfered with and altered GNSO guidance via its "advice."
SO: Actually if this is true, I don't think its right to say GAC did this but rather that board made this happen. We cannot have a board that does not have option to decide independently be it on GAC advice/ALAC's or any other policy outcome of an SO. As far as I am concerned, the most neutral part of this community remains the board and they require adequate means of exercising that role. Regards
_______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=76kePlkdYcmfr7zfk32fU9_dPlaUpcr-oBK0geRIzXY&s=V3AC2n9qYAHJ0g8KvXfcXwinsBZRFPTsmZfgUaOtCB4&e=>
As I said, personally, I can agree with that principle, although I feel it is extensible. Best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 29.01.2016 um 22:51 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>: And we need to preserve the community’s ability to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice, which is what my proposal is intended to do. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, January 29, 2016 at 4:48 PM To: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing On 29 Jan 2016 10:11 p.m., "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
Isn't it so that any guidance or PDP adopted by 2/3 by the GNSO must be adopted by the Board?
No, it is not. The GAC has routinely interfered with and altered GNSO guidance via its "advice."
SO: Actually if this is true, I don't think its right to say GAC did this but rather that board made this happen. We cannot have a board that does not have option to decide independently be it on GAC advice/ALAC's or any other policy outcome of an SO. As far as I am concerned, the most neutral part of this community remains the board and they require adequate means of exercising that role. Regards
_______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=76kePlkdYcmfr7zfk32fU9_dPlaUpcr-oBK0geRIzXY&s=V3AC2n9qYAHJ0g8KvXfcXwinsBZRFPTsmZfgUaOtCB4&e=>
Agreed. Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 4:51 PM To: Seun Ojedeji; Mueller, Milton L Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing And we need to preserve the community's ability to challenge the Board's implementation of GAC Advice, which is what my proposal is intended to do. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, January 29, 2016 at 4:48 PM To: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing On 29 Jan 2016 10:11 p.m., "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
Isn't it so that any guidance or PDP adopted by 2/3 by the GNSO must be adopted by the Board?
No, it is not. The GAC has routinely interfered with and altered GNSO guidance via its "advice."
SO: Actually if this is true, I don't think its right to say GAC did this but rather that board made this happen. We cannot have a board that does not have option to decide independently be it on GAC advice/ALAC's or any other policy outcome of an SO. As far as I am concerned, the most neutral part of this community remains the board and they require adequate means of exercising that role. Regards
_______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=76kePlkdYcmfr7zfk32fU9_dPlaUpcr-oBK0geRIzXY&s=V3AC2n9qYAHJ0g8KvXfcXwinsBZRFPTsmZfgUaOtCB4&e=>
A useful suggestion that should be considered - thanks Becky. On 29/01/2016 21:55, Drazek, Keith wrote:
Agreed.
Keith
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Burr, Becky *Sent:* Friday, January 29, 2016 4:51 PM *To:* Seun Ojedeji; Mueller, Milton L *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
And we need to preserve the community’s ability to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice, which is what my proposal is intended to do.
*J. Beckwith Burr**** **Neustar, Inc.***/**Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 *Office:***+1.202.533.2932 *Mobile:***+1.202.352.6367 */**neustar.biz* <http://www.neustar.biz>
*From: *Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> *Date: *Friday, January 29, 2016 at 4:48 PM *To: *"Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> *Cc: *"Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
On 29 Jan 2016 10:11 p.m., "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
Isn't it so that any guidance or PDP adopted by 2/3 by the GNSO
must be
adopted by the Board?
No, it is not. The GAC has routinely interfered with and altered GNSO guidance via its "advice."
SO: Actually if this is true, I don't think its right to say GAC did this but rather that board made this happen. We cannot have a board that does not have option to decide independently be it on GAC advice/ALAC's or any other policy outcome of an SO. As far as I am concerned, the most neutral part of this community remains the board and they require adequate means of exercising that role.
Regards
_______________________________________________ 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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-----Original Message----- I do not believe that the Board has an affirmative obligation to sit down with any other SO or AC to find a “mutually acceptable solution” to anything
This is more than a "belief," Becky, it is the reality. GAC advice has a special, stronger status - especially because it usually comes AFTER an SO has gone through the laborious process of developing consensus policy. I might also add that the ASO and ccNSO cannot and do not offer "advice" about GNSO-made policies, and vice-versa. GAC cannot have it both ways. That is, it cannot pretend that it is "just another AC/SO" when it comes to board votes, while at the same time enjoying the by-law status that allows it to hold the entire policy making process hostage while the board and it "reach a mutually acceptable solution." --MM
On 1/29/16, 4:00 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
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>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 1/29/16, 3:08 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <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>>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross- co mm 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>> 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-c ro ss-community-bounces@icann.org>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community- bounces@icann.org<mailto:accounta bi 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>> Cc:
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross- com mu 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>> 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-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- 3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF- g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKO ghNjATPghujBr31 se
8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V _-SJk&e=
3A__mm.icann.org_mailm
an
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross- 2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _l
ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPee S727VSPyw6EopaZ qi
SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZY QvTaptkRI&e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability- Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- 3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF- g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKO ghNjATPghujBr31 se
8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V _-SJk&e=
3A__mm.icann.org_mailm
an
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross- 2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _l
ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPee S727VSPyw6EopaZ qi
SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZY QvTaptkRI&e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability- Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- 3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF- g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKO ghNjATPghujBr31 se
8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V _-SJk&e=
3A__mm.icann.org_mailm
an
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross- 2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _l
ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPee S727VSPyw6EopaZ qi
SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZY QvTaptkRI&e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability- Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- 3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF- g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKO ghNjATPghujBr31 se
8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V _-SJk&e=
I do not know what some people talking about in saying" talking about when saying "That said, the RySG position on Recommendation 11 and the 2/3 threshold has turned out to be a minority view in the GNSO." There is not information on what was the basis for minority and majority in GNSO SOME OTHER PEOPLE TAKE THEMSLEF AS CHAIR AND ASKIN " WHO ELSE SUPPORT THE 2/3 ????This question is irrelevant Some other people said , did GAC reach consensus on the need to have 2/3 MAJORITY THE ANSWER IS YES. There are two mutually exclusinve condition 1. st 18 2. Simple majority We can not have both either ST18 with 2/3 Or Simple majority without ST 18 NO PAINTING THE OPTIONS Regards Kavouss 2016-01-29 22:10 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>:
-----Original Message----- I do not believe that the Board has an affirmative obligation to sit down with any other SO or AC to find a “mutually acceptable solution” to anything
This is more than a "belief," Becky, it is the reality. GAC advice has a special, stronger status - especially because it usually comes AFTER an SO has gone through the laborious process of developing consensus policy. I might also add that the ASO and ccNSO cannot and do not offer "advice" about GNSO-made policies, and vice-versa.
GAC cannot have it both ways. That is, it cannot pretend that it is "just another AC/SO" when it comes to board votes, while at the same time enjoying the by-law status that allows it to hold the entire policy making process hostage while the board and it "reach a mutually acceptable solution."
--MM
On 1/29/16, 4:00 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
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>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 1/29/16, 3:08 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <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>>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross- co mm 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>> 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-c ro ss-community-bounces@icann.org>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community- bounces@icann.org<mailto:accounta bi 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>> Cc:
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross- com mu 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>> 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-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- 3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF- g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKO ghNjATPghujBr31 se
8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V _-SJk&e=
3A__mm.icann.org_mailm
an
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross- 2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _l
ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPee S727VSPyw6EopaZ qi
SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZY QvTaptkRI&e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability- Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- 3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF- g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKO ghNjATPghujBr31 se
8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V _-SJk&e=
3A__mm.icann.org_mailm
an
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross- 2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _l
ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPee S727VSPyw6EopaZ qi
SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZY QvTaptkRI&e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability- Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- 3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF- g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKO ghNjATPghujBr31 se
8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V _-SJk&e=
3A__mm.icann.org_mailm
an
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross- 2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _l
ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPee S727VSPyw6EopaZ qi
SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZY QvTaptkRI&e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability- Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- 3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF- g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKO ghNjATPghujBr31 se
8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V _-SJk&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
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 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: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 4:01 PM To: Becky.Burr@neustar.biz Cc: 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>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 1/29/16, 3:08 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <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>>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -comm 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>> 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:accountabilit y-cro ss-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accou ntabi 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>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross- commu 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>> 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- Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e = <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma ilman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6Eo paZqi SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI& e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e = <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma ilman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6Eo paZqi SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI& e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e = <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma ilman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6Eo paZqi SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI& e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
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>:
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 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: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 4:01 PM To: Becky.Burr@neustar.biz Cc: 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>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 1/29/16, 3:08 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <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>>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -comm 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>> 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:accountabilit y-cro ss-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accou ntabi 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>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross- commu 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>> 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- Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e = <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma ilman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6Eo paZqi SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI& e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e = <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma ilman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6Eo paZqi SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI& e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e = <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma ilman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6Eo paZqi SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI& e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e =
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
No. I am suggesting specifically that the GAC could not act to block exercise of a community power to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. ICANN’s obligations with respect to GAC Advice are unique and exceptional in the ICANN context. Some members of the GAC are looking to make it even more exceptional/harder to resist (by raising the standard to 2/3rds). I am proposing a specific tool to balance the increased standard in the GAC context, which is a material change in the status quo. All it does is preserve the ability of the community to challenge the Board’s handling of that Advice. You can say that it is not neutral Jorge, but I believe you are comparing apples and oranges. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz> On 1/29/16, 4:12 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
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>:
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 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: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 4:01 PM To: Becky.Burr@neustar.biz Cc: 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>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 1/29/16, 3:08 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <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>>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -comm 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>> 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:accountabilit y-cro ss-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accou ntabi 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>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross- commu 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>> 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- Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e = <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma ilman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6Eo paZqi SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI& e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e = <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma ilman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6Eo paZqi SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI& e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e = <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma ilman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6Eo paZqi SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI& e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e =
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=5RzyfDxhmtzWKYnGR8H i4gTAd8BXNqnecqgLpftf2XY&s=8btQ4OQ82PIUedi5SX597A3y44lb8FYSZIHhn6RbuLs&e=
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 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: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 4:12 PM To: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com Cc: Becky.Burr@neustar.biz; 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>:
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 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: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 4:01 PM To: Becky.Burr@neustar.biz Cc: 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>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 1/29/16, 3:08 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <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>>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros s -comm 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>> 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:accountabili t y-cro ss-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acco u ntabi 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>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross - commu 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>> 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 - Commu 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 - Commu 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 - Commu 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 - Commu 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
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>:
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 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: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 4:12 PM To: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com Cc: Becky.Burr@neustar.biz; 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>:
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 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: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 4:01 PM To: Becky.Burr@neustar.biz Cc: 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>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 1/29/16, 3:08 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <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>>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros s -comm 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>> 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:accountabili t y-cro ss-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acco u ntabi 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>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross - commu 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>> 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 - Commu 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 - Commu 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 - Commu 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 - Commu 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 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
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
Mr. Rosenzweig, Is it your representation that something _must_ have occured prior to the GAC members severally and/or collectively arriving at a view on the merits of an application? If so, what please? [Mr. Rosenzweig's spirited defense of the DCA Trust application for .africa omitted.] Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon
Mr. Brunner-Williams I don't even understand your question. Perhaps you are too smart for me. But to be clear I make no defense of the .Africa decision, nor a critique. I only note that the decision makes it clear that the GAC through its process did intervene. -- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Friday, 29 January 2016, 08:58PM -05:00 from "Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams" < ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> :
Mr. Rosenzweig,
Is it your representation that something _must_ have occured prior to the GAC members severally and/or collectively arriving at a view on the merits of an application? If so, what please?
[Mr. Rosenzweig's spirited defense of the DCA Trust application for .africa omitted.]
Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon
Dear All, I am not comfortable with Steve proposal or his comrpomise. Perhaps we could work on some thing else. I have added another alternative : STATUS QUO and SUPPRESSION OF ST18 which in fact was invented by somebody and pushed through a working party and then CCWG Once again , 2/3 Majority for GAC Advice may encourage GAC to ACCEPT ST18. This is an important elemebnt Pls carefully consider that before GAC totally exclude that Kavouss 2016-01-30 3:13 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:
Mr. Brunner-Williams
I don't even understand your question. Perhaps you are too smart for me.
But to be clear I make no defense of the .Africa decision, nor a critique. I only note that the decision makes it clear that the GAC through its process did intervene.
-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Friday, 29 January 2016, 08:58PM -05:00 from "Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams" <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>:
Mr. Rosenzweig,
Is it your representation that something _must_ have occured prior to the GAC members severally and/or collectively arriving at a view on the merits of an application? If so, what please?
[Mr. Rosenzweig's spirited defense of the DCA Trust application for .africa omitted.]
Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon
Mr. Rosenzweig, You are advancing the thesis "the GAC has never interfered with anything is categorically wrong". Personally, I expect every AC and SO to participate in some aspects of policy development and implementation. Why you view the involvement of the GAC in policy development and implementation as interference does not interest me. However, in support of your thesis you pointed to the GAC's issuance of an objection to the DCA Trust application. Ignoring some IRP, the process and outcome of which is of no interest to me, and whether anyone projects their idea of "fairness" into the Board's action on this, or any other application, just what must public bodies do when a private party asserts a speculative claim on an aggregate of public bodies? This isn't a trick question or somthing that requires a great deal of intelligence -- what did the GAC fail to do -- in your view -- prior to arriving at a view on the merits of the DCA Trust applicaiton for the string "africa"? Your claim is something improper occured, exactly what was it? Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon
Mr. Brunner-Williams As I said before, perhaps not clearly enough for you, I have no view on the matter. The IRP (that you seem to want to ignore) did, however, have a view. I would not want to attempt to summarize it for fear of not doing it justice. Indeed, the entire opinion is worth reading. If you read that and do not think that the IRP concluded that GAC had acted improperly, so be it ... but no fair reading of the opinion could interpret it that way. Regards 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: Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net] Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2016 2:59 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: Re[2]: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing Mr. Rosenzweig, You are advancing the thesis "the GAC has never interfered with anything is categorically wrong". Personally, I expect every AC and SO to participate in some aspects of policy development and implementation. Why you view the involvement of the GAC in policy development and implementation as interference does not interest me. However, in support of your thesis you pointed to the GAC's issuance of an objection to the DCA Trust application. Ignoring some IRP, the process and outcome of which is of no interest to me, and whether anyone projects their idea of "fairness" into the Board's action on this, or any other application, just what must public bodies do when a private party asserts a speculative claim on an aggregate of public bodies? This isn't a trick question or somthing that requires a great deal of intelligence -- what did the GAC fail to do -- in your view -- prior to arriving at a view on the merits of the DCA Trust applicaiton for the string "africa"? Your claim is something improper occured, exactly what was it? Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon
Mr. Rosenzweig, Your initial remark, which I assumed was not in jest, was that the GAC had interfered. I assume you'd like to convey to others what that interference was. If you could identify the act of interference that would be helpful. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon
As I said before, perhaps not clearly enough for you, I have no view on the matter. The IRP (that you seem to want to ignore) did, however, have a view. I would not want to attempt to summarize it for fear of not doing it justice. Indeed, the entire opinion is worth reading. If you read that and do not think that the IRP concluded that GAC had acted improperly, so be it ... but no fair reading of the opinion could interpret it that way.
As I said, it was not my conclusion but that of the IRP. I am sure you can read that decision .... P 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: Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net] Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 10:40 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: 'Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams' <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>; 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: Re[2]: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing Mr. Rosenzweig, Your initial remark, which I assumed was not in jest, was that the GAC had interfered. I assume you'd like to convey to others what that interference was. If you could identify the act of interference that would be helpful. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon
As I said before, perhaps not clearly enough for you, I have no view on the matter. The IRP (that you seem to want to ignore) did, however, have a view. I would not want to attempt to summarize it for fear of not doing it justice. Indeed, the entire opinion is worth reading. If you read that and do not think that the IRP concluded that GAC had acted improperly, so be it ... but no fair reading of the
opinion could interpret it that way.
As I said, it was not my conclusion but that of the IRP. I am sure you can read that decision ....
I give up. You can't point to an act, or a failure to act, by the GAC, yet you claim it interfered, and the basis for your assertion is that someone else said so. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon
OK ... I'll give up too. The IRP handed the Board its most severe rebuke in living memory for acting on improper GAC advice and you seem content with that .... 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: Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net] Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 12:55 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: 'Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams' <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>; 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: Re[2]: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
As I said, it was not my conclusion but that of the IRP. I am sure you can read that decision ....
I give up. You can't point to an act, or a failure to act, by the GAC, yet you claim it interfered, and the basis for your assertion is that someone else said so. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon
I'll reiterate my comments from yesterday's Adobe Chat on this subject: Following up the earlier comment on GNSO PDP advice thresholds, there are several important distinctions: one key part of that threshold for the GNSO is that the Board only has to show any deference to the GNSO IF AND ONLY IF that advice come through a formal PDP. This means not all GNSO resolutions (call it advice) gets the Board deference even if the vote of the GNSO Council is unanimous. In addition, the GNSO may only issue a formal PDP under certain restrictions in both scope and jurisdiction. Not every topic can be properly considered in scope for a GNSO PDP. In fact, as part of every issue report in the GNSO PDP process, the General Counsel is asked to opine as to whether the proposed issue is properly within the jurisdiction of the GNSO. If it is not, that does not prevent the PDP from continuing, but arguably, the increased Board threshold would not apply in such a case. So yes, there are clear procedural differences, if not potentially substantive impacts. Regards, Keith -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 4:29 PM To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing 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 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: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 4:12 PM To: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com Cc: Becky.Burr@neustar.biz; 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>:
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 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: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 4:01 PM To: Becky.Burr@neustar.biz Cc: 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>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 1/29/16, 3:08 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <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>>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros s -comm 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>> 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:accountabili t y-cro ss-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acco u ntabi 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>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross - commu 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>> 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 - Commu 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 - Commu 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 - Commu 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 - Commu 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 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
Jorge, I have seen this repeated several times. The special privilege is ONLY afforded to the GNSO under VERY limited circumstances. It is ONLY when there is a formal policy development process (PDP). A PDP may only be initiated with limited subject areas and goes through a large number of checks and balances prior to the end of the PDP. There is complete transparency and in order to be enforced against the contracted parties, PDPs MUST relate to the very limited "picket fence" fence contained with the contracted parties agreement. The 2/3 threshold has only ever applied in 15+ years with respect to 10 items (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registrars/consensus-policies-en). Every other bit of advice, guidance, decision, etc. even if it had unanimous support of the GNSO can be approved or rejected by a simple majority. What is being proposed here is that the 2/3 threshold apply to EVERY bit of advice that the GAC gives if it has consensus. That is NOT what the GNSO has right now. If you want to compare apples to apples, the scope of advice would have to be greatly limited with the same amount of transparency, checks and balances in the process, public comment periods, etc. If that happens, then we could compare apples to apples. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 9:01 PM To: Becky.Burr@neustar.biz Cc: 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>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 1/29/16, 3:08 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <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>>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -comm 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>> 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:accountabilit y-cro ss-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accou ntabi 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>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross- commu 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>> 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- Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e = <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma ilman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6Eo paZqi SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI& e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e = <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma ilman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6Eo paZqi SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI& e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e = <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma ilman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6Eo paZqi SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI& e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Jeff Is the 2/3 threshold not also applicable to the newly established GNSO Guidance procedure? And btw: I (for myself) would have no problem with Becky's proposal. I just feel that it is based on a principle (impede that an SO/AC may block a challenge against a Board action started at its behest) that seems to be applicable to all SO/ACs. regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 29.01.2016 um 22:30 schrieb Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>:
Jorge,
I have seen this repeated several times. The special privilege is ONLY afforded to the GNSO under VERY limited circumstances. It is ONLY when there is a formal policy development process (PDP). A PDP may only be initiated with limited subject areas and goes through a large number of checks and balances prior to the end of the PDP. There is complete transparency and in order to be enforced against the contracted parties, PDPs MUST relate to the very limited "picket fence" fence contained with the contracted parties agreement. The 2/3 threshold has only ever applied in 15+ years with respect to 10 items (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registrars/consensus-policies-en). Every other bit of advice, guidance, decision, etc. even if it had unanimous support of the GNSO can be approved or rejected by a simple majority.
What is being proposed here is that the 2/3 threshold apply to EVERY bit of advice that the GAC gives if it has consensus. That is NOT what the GNSO has right now. If you want to compare apples to apples, the scope of advice would have to be greatly limited with the same amount of transparency, checks and balances in the process, public comment periods, etc. If that happens, then we could compare apples to apples.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 9:01 PM To: Becky.Burr@neustar.biz Cc: 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>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 1/29/16, 3:08 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <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>>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -comm 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>> 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:accountabilit y-cro ss-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accou ntabi 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>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross- commu 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>> 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- Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e = <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma ilman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6Eo paZqi SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI& e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e = <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma ilman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6Eo paZqi SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI& e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e = <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma ilman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6Eo paZqi SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI& e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Commu nity@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e =
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Yes but the Guidance is with respect to implementation of an already established Consensus Policy that went through a PDP. It is not for any type of guidance. Another check and balance. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw -----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 9:39 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: Becky.Burr@neustar.biz; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing Dear Jeff Is the 2/3 threshold not also applicable to the newly established GNSO Guidance procedure? And btw: I (for myself) would have no problem with Becky's proposal. I just feel that it is based on a principle (impede that an SO/AC may block a challenge against a Board action started at its behest) that seems to be applicable to all SO/ACs. regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 29.01.2016 um 22:30 schrieb Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>:
Jorge,
I have seen this repeated several times. The special privilege is ONLY afforded to the GNSO under VERY limited circumstances. It is ONLY when there is a formal policy development process (PDP). A PDP may only be initiated with limited subject areas and goes through a large number of checks and balances prior to the end of the PDP. There is complete transparency and in order to be enforced against the contracted parties, PDPs MUST relate to the very limited "picket fence" fence contained with the contracted parties agreement. The 2/3 threshold has only ever applied in 15+ years with respect to 10 items (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registrars/consensus-policies-en). Every other bit of advice, guidance, decision, etc. even if it had unanimous support of the GNSO can be approved or rejected by a simple majority.
What is being proposed here is that the 2/3 threshold apply to EVERY bit of advice that the GAC gives if it has consensus. That is NOT what the GNSO has right now. If you want to compare apples to apples, the scope of advice would have to be greatly limited with the same amount of transparency, checks and balances in the process, public comment periods, etc. If that happens, then we could compare apples to apples.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 9:01 PM To: Becky.Burr@neustar.biz Cc: 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>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 1/29/16, 3:08 PM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <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>>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros s -comm 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>> 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:accountabili t y-cro ss-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acco u ntabi 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>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross - commu 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>> 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 - Commu 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 - Commu 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 - Commu 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 - Commu 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thank you for this very clear explanation. __________ ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> On Jan 29, 2016, at 4:48 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Jorge, I have seen this repeated several times. The special privilege is ONLY afforded to the GNSO under VERY limited circumstances. It is ONLY when there is a formal policy development process (PDP). A PDP may only be initiated with limited subject areas and goes through a large number of checks and balances prior to the end of the PDP. There is complete transparency and in order to be enforced against the contracted parties, PDPs MUST relate to the very limited "picket fence" fence contained with the contracted parties agreement. The 2/3 threshold has only ever applied in 15+ years with respect to 10 items (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registrars/consensus-policies-en<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registrars/consensus-policies-en>). Every other bit of advice, guidance, decision, etc. even if it had unanimous support of the GNSO can be approved or rejected by a simple majority. What is being proposed here is that the 2/3 threshold apply to EVERY bit of advice that the GAC gives if it has consensus. That is NOT what the GNSO has right now. If you want to compare apples to apples, the scope of advice would have to be greatly limited with the same amount of transparency, checks and balances in the process, public comment periods, etc. If that happens, then we could compare apples to apples. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 9:01 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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.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>>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>>
From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross -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>> 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:accountabilit y-cro ss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accou 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>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><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>> 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>> 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> >:
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>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross- Commu nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai> lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e = <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma> ilman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6Eo 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- Commu nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai> lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e = <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma> ilman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6Eo 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- Commu nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai> lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB r31se 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&e = <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma> ilman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_l ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6Eo 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- Commu nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai> lman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA LC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghujB 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<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<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
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
Hi Andrew, The Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) would likely support this approach. The RySG said it could accept 2/3 if the 3 criteria included in our comments were incorporated, and they appear to be. Becky's suggestion builds on those comments and criteria. That said, the RySG position on Recommendation 11 and the 2/3 threshold has turned out to be a minority view in the GNSO. I can't speak for the other GNSO groups. Regards, Keith -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan 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
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
Great idea. Worth considering 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 Board's implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the "no more than two SO/ACs objecting" threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board's implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN's 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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community <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 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=>
Hello Becky, This would have indeed been a perfect compromise, if the function of 2/3 is made clear to Washington as insignificant especially if the board is fine with it. I can imagine what the headline will look like if 2/3 is maintained in the proposal and this does not necessarily mean that it has any negative/positive impact on this proposal but considering the current hype level, it has become a popular topic. That said, i hope such IRP restriction on GAC would exclude anything that would affect their current structural establishment as I believe they should always but be empowered to give an opinion in such scenarios. It is my hope that GAC would accept this as a compromise option so this can be considered closed. Regards On 29 Jan 2016 9:05 p.m., "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
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 Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s 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 *Mobile:* +1.202.352.6367 */* *neustar.biz* <http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Friday, January 29, 2016 at 2:38 PM To: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@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> 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] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Friday, January 29, 2016 11:58 AM *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Cc:* 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> 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> 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 >:
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
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
My proposal would have no impact whatsoever on the GAC’s authority to say whatever it wants about anything it wants. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, January 29, 2016 at 4:32 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>> Cc: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing Hello Becky, This would have indeed been a perfect compromise, if the function of 2/3 is made clear to Washington as insignificant especially if the board is fine with it. I can imagine what the headline will look like if 2/3 is maintained in the proposal and this does not necessarily mean that it has any negative/positive impact on this proposal but considering the current hype level, it has become a popular topic. That said, i hope such IRP restriction on GAC would exclude anything that would affect their current structural establishment as I believe they should always but be empowered to give an opinion in such scenarios. It is my hope that GAC would accept this as a compromise option so this can be considered closed. Regards On 29 Jan 2016 9:05 p.m., "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> wrote: 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 Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s 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://www.neustar.biz> From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community <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 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=CC0aefNGO9VMKPUmSjQP-CNSkqu01ypPU1ZKC-0Iq5Y&s=-O48t8sfQIte0RAAdEGkqDymfdAjW-0R4L6P86pam0g&e=>
Dear Becky, Co-chairs, all, As we have stated in the Danish comments to the CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal, we fully support Recommendation 11. We believe it is a carefully drafted compromise, which we hoped (and still do) would achieve the support such a compromise deserves in order to move the CCWG proposal forward. We would also like to remind colleagues that the 2/3 threshold for the ICANN Board rejecting GAC consensus advice was agreed by the GAC in the GAC Communiqué Dublin. However, we feel Becky's proposal is a very constructive way forward and is worth discussing further. It would also eliminate the need to do a poll at the CCWG-meeting tomorrow morning. It would be unfortunate go down that road at this moment in time as it seems that Becky's proposal addresses some of the concerns expressed. Also it is not clear to us whether the result (based on the recent discussion on the list) would take us any further in our work. ICANN's communities need not be further divided - it is time for convergence and compromise! Best, Finn Kind regards Finn Petersen Director of International ICT Rellations DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 3529 1013 Mobile: +45 2072 7131 E-mail: FinPet@erst.dk www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 29. januar 2016 21:05 Til: Greg Shatan; Mueller, Milton L Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing 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 Board's implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the "no more than two SO/ACs objecting" threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board's implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN's 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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community <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 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=>
Sounds a very sensible way forward, although Becky's proposal contains a principle which perhaps should not only be applied to the GAC. regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 01.02.2016 um 14:34 schrieb Finn Petersen <FinPet@erst.dk<mailto:FinPet@erst.dk>>: Dear Becky, Co-chairs, all, As we have stated in the Danish comments to the CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal, we fully support Recommendation 11. We believe it is a carefully drafted compromise, which we hoped (and still do) would achieve the support such a compromise deserves in order to move the CCWG proposal forward. We would also like to remind colleagues that the 2/3 threshold for the ICANN Board rejecting GAC consensus advice was agreed by the GAC in the GAC Communiqué Dublin. However, we feel Becky’s proposal is a very constructive way forward and is worth discussing further. It would also eliminate the need to do a poll at the CCWG-meeting tomorrow morning. It would be unfortunate go down that road at this moment in time as it seems that Becky’s proposal addresses some of the concerns expressed. Also it is not clear to us whether the result (based on the recent discussion on the list) would take us any further in our work. ICANN’s communities need not be further divided – it is time for convergence and compromise! Best, Finn Kind regards Finn Petersen Director of International ICT Rellations DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 3529 1013 Mobile: +45 2072 7131 E-mail: FinPet@erst.dk<mailto:FinPet@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 29. januar 2016 21:05 Til: Greg Shatan; Mueller, Milton L Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing 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 Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s 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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community <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 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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
+1 Rafael Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos. -------- Original message -------- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Date:01/02/2016 15:13 (GMT+01:00) To: FinPet@erst.dk Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing Sounds a very sensible way forward, although Becky's proposal contains a principle which perhaps should not only be applied to the GAC. regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 01.02.2016 um 14:34 schrieb Finn Petersen <FinPet@erst.dk<mailto:FinPet@erst.dk>>: Dear Becky, Co-chairs, all, As we have stated in the Danish comments to the CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal, we fully support Recommendation 11. We believe it is a carefully drafted compromise, which we hoped (and still do) would achieve the support such a compromise deserves in order to move the CCWG proposal forward. We would also like to remind colleagues that the 2/3 threshold for the ICANN Board rejecting GAC consensus advice was agreed by the GAC in the GAC Communiqué Dublin. However, we feel Becky’s proposal is a very constructive way forward and is worth discussing further. It would also eliminate the need to do a poll at the CCWG-meeting tomorrow morning. It would be unfortunate go down that road at this moment in time as it seems that Becky’s proposal addresses some of the concerns expressed. Also it is not clear to us whether the result (based on the recent discussion on the list) would take us any further in our work. ICANN’s communities need not be further divided – it is time for convergence and compromise! Best, Finn Kind regards Finn Petersen Director of International ICT Rellations DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 3529 1013 Mobile: +45 2072 7131 E-mail: FinPet@erst.dk<mailto:FinPet@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 29. januar 2016 21:05 Til: Greg Shatan; Mueller, Milton L Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing 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 Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s 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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community <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 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Good for you Finn 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=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=em ail&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016> From: Finn Petersen [mailto:FinPet@erst.dk] Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 8:23 AM To: 'Burr, Becky' <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing Dear Becky, Co-chairs, all, As we have stated in the Danish comments to the CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal, we fully support Recommendation 11. We believe it is a carefully drafted compromise, which we hoped (and still do) would achieve the support such a compromise deserves in order to move the CCWG proposal forward. We would also like to remind colleagues that the 2/3 threshold for the ICANN Board rejecting GAC consensus advice was agreed by the GAC in the GAC Communiqué Dublin. However, we feel Beckys proposal is a very constructive way forward and is worth discussing further. It would also eliminate the need to do a poll at the CCWG-meeting tomorrow morning. It would be unfortunate go down that road at this moment in time as it seems that Beckys proposal addresses some of the concerns expressed. Also it is not clear to us whether the result (based on the recent discussion on the list) would take us any further in our work. ICANNs communities need not be further divided it is time for convergence and compromise! Best, Finn Kind regards Finn Petersen Director of International ICT Rellations DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 3529 1013 Mobile: +45 2072 7131 E-mail: FinPet@erst.dk <mailto:FinPet@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk <http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 29. januar 2016 21:05 Til: Greg Shatan; Mueller, Milton L Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing 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 Boards implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the no more than two SO/ACs objecting threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Boards implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANNs 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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / <http://www.neustar.biz> neustar.biz From: Greg Shatan <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> > Cc: Accountability Community <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 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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l istinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw &r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc 7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l istinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw &r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc 7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l istinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw &r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc 7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&e=>
Dear CCWG colleagues As you know, the UK Government supports Recommendation 11. I believe there is support outside the GAC for the 2/3 threshold for rejection of GAC advice. I agree that there is potential in Becky's proposal for a compromise solution for obviating the double opportunity risk. While the GAC would not participating in some potentially critical decisions under this arrangement, the community should recognise the value of the GAC providing advice in the form of guidance that *inter alia* recounts the rationale for its original advice to the Board. I also suggest more generally that some formality is accorded to the process whereby any non-participating AC can provide advice, in order to ensure that such advice when received is duly recorded, taken fully into account and responded to, before the participating SO/ACs proceed to a decision. Kind regards Mark Mark Carvell United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062 On 1 February 2016 at 13:22, Finn Petersen <FinPet@erst.dk> wrote:
Dear Becky, Co-chairs, all,
As we have stated in the Danish comments to the CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal, we fully support Recommendation 11. We believe it is a carefully drafted compromise, which we hoped (and still do) would achieve the support such a compromise deserves in order to move the CCWG proposal forward. We would also like to remind colleagues that the 2/3 threshold for the ICANN Board rejecting GAC consensus advice was agreed by the GAC in the GAC Communiqué Dublin.
*However*, we feel Becky’s proposal is a very constructive way forward and is worth discussing further. It would also eliminate the need to do a poll at the CCWG-meeting tomorrow morning. It would be unfortunate go down that road at this moment in time as it seems that Becky’s proposal addresses some of the concerns expressed. Also it is not clear to us whether the result (based on the recent discussion on the list) would take us any further in our work.
ICANN’s communities need not be further divided – it is time for convergence and compromise!
Best,
Finn
Kind regards
*Finn Petersen*
Director of International ICT Rellations
*DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY*
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 3529 1013
Mobile: +45 2072 7131 E-mail: FinPet@erst.dk www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
*Fra:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *På vegne af *Burr, Becky *Sendt:* 29. januar 2016 21:05 *Til:* Greg Shatan; Mueller, Milton L *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Emne:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
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 Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s 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 *Mobile:* +1.202.352.6367 */* *neustar.biz* <http://www.neustar.biz>
*From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, January 29, 2016 at 2:38 PM *To: *"Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> *Cc: *Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@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> 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] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Friday, January 29, 2016 11:58 AM *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Cc:* 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> 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> 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 >:
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
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I have no problem with this suggestion. Advice should always be welcome. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Mark Carvell <mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk>> Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 11:19 AM To: Finn Petersen <FinPet@erst.dk<mailto:FinPet@erst.dk>> Cc: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>, Accountability Community <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 Dear CCWG colleagues As you know, the UK Government supports Recommendation 11. I believe there is support outside the GAC for the 2/3 threshold for rejection of GAC advice. I agree that there is potential in Becky's proposal for a compromise solution for obviating the double opportunity risk. While the GAC would not participating in some potentially critical decisions under this arrangement, the community should recognise the value of the GAC providing advice in the form of guidance that inter alia recounts the rationale for its original advice to the Board. I also suggest more generally that some formality is accorded to the process whereby any non-participating AC can provide advice, in order to ensure that such advice when received is duly recorded, taken fully into account and responded to, before the participating SO/ACs proceed to a decision. Kind regards Mark Mark Carvell United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk> tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062<tel:%2B44%20%280%29%2020%207211%206062> On 1 February 2016 at 13:22, Finn Petersen <FinPet@erst.dk<mailto:FinPet@erst.dk>> wrote: Dear Becky, Co-chairs, all, As we have stated in the Danish comments to the CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal, we fully support Recommendation 11. We believe it is a carefully drafted compromise, which we hoped (and still do) would achieve the support such a compromise deserves in order to move the CCWG proposal forward. We would also like to remind colleagues that the 2/3 threshold for the ICANN Board rejecting GAC consensus advice was agreed by the GAC in the GAC Communiqué Dublin. However, we feel Becky’s proposal is a very constructive way forward and is worth discussing further. It would also eliminate the need to do a poll at the CCWG-meeting tomorrow morning. It would be unfortunate go down that road at this moment in time as it seems that Becky’s proposal addresses some of the concerns expressed. Also it is not clear to us whether the result (based on the recent discussion on the list) would take us any further in our work. ICANN’s communities need not be further divided – it is time for convergence and compromise! Best, Finn Kind regards Finn Petersen Director of International ICT Rellations DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000<tel:%2B45%203529%201000> Direct: +45 3529 1013<tel:%2B45%203529%201013> Mobile: +45 2072 7131<tel:%2B45%202072%207131> E-mail: FinPet@erst.dk<mailto:FinPet@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk...> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH PPlease consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: 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>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 29. januar 2016 21:05 Til: Greg Shatan; Mueller, Milton L Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing 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 Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s 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://www.neustar.biz> From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community <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 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Gevk6YjbF3cqPQVZB8fb8CWFnsVgAWHqsIrkr8ch6N4&s=uqonWpFDoij_k9kZhQfnyMQbcyfbly_-w7LqHaMZxq0&e=>
Good points! Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Mark Carvell Gesendet: Montag, 1. Februar 2016 17:19 An: Finn Petersen <FinPet@erst.dk> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing Dear CCWG colleagues As you know, the UK Government supports Recommendation 11. I believe there is support outside the GAC for the 2/3 threshold for rejection of GAC advice. I agree that there is potential in Becky's proposal for a compromise solution for obviating the double opportunity risk. While the GAC would not participating in some potentially critical decisions under this arrangement, the community should recognise the value of the GAC providing advice in the form of guidance that inter alia recounts the rationale for its original advice to the Board. I also suggest more generally that some formality is accorded to the process whereby any non-participating AC can provide advice, in order to ensure that such advice when received is duly recorded, taken fully into account and responded to, before the participating SO/ACs proceed to a decision. Kind regards Mark Mark Carvell United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk> tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062<tel:%2B44%20%280%29%2020%207211%206062> On 1 February 2016 at 13:22, Finn Petersen <FinPet@erst.dk<mailto:FinPet@erst.dk>> wrote: Dear Becky, Co-chairs, all, As we have stated in the Danish comments to the CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal, we fully support Recommendation 11. We believe it is a carefully drafted compromise, which we hoped (and still do) would achieve the support such a compromise deserves in order to move the CCWG proposal forward. We would also like to remind colleagues that the 2/3 threshold for the ICANN Board rejecting GAC consensus advice was agreed by the GAC in the GAC Communiqué Dublin. However, we feel Becky’s proposal is a very constructive way forward and is worth discussing further. It would also eliminate the need to do a poll at the CCWG-meeting tomorrow morning. It would be unfortunate go down that road at this moment in time as it seems that Becky’s proposal addresses some of the concerns expressed. Also it is not clear to us whether the result (based on the recent discussion on the list) would take us any further in our work. ICANN’s communities need not be further divided – it is time for convergence and compromise! Best, Finn Kind regards Finn Petersen Director of International ICT Rellations DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000<tel:%2B45%203529%201000> Direct: +45 3529 1013<tel:%2B45%203529%201013> Mobile: +45 2072 7131<tel:%2B45%202072%207131> E-mail: FinPet@erst.dk<mailto:FinPet@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: 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>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 29. januar 2016 21:05 Til: Greg Shatan; Mueller, Milton L Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing 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 Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s 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://www.neustar.biz> From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community <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 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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
Mark — in the Dublin breakout meetings for CCWG, the community decision group surfaced this idea: Within the community decision process, each AC/SO would decide, using its own methods, one of four decisions: it supports the proposed exercise of the community power, it objects to the exercise of the community power, It wishes to advise the other community participants if its views, but neither supports nor opposes, it wishes to remain silent on the matter. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mark Carvell <mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk>> Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 11:19 AM To: Finn Petersen <FinPet@erst.dk<mailto:FinPet@erst.dk>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <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 Dear CCWG colleagues As you know, the UK Government supports Recommendation 11. I believe there is support outside the GAC for the 2/3 threshold for rejection of GAC advice. I agree that there is potential in Becky's proposal for a compromise solution for obviating the double opportunity risk. While the GAC would not participating in some potentially critical decisions under this arrangement, the community should recognise the value of the GAC providing advice in the form of guidance that inter alia recounts the rationale for its original advice to the Board. I also suggest more generally that some formality is accorded to the process whereby any non-participating AC can provide advice, in order to ensure that such advice when received is duly recorded, taken fully into account and responded to, before the participating SO/ACs proceed to a decision. Kind regards Mark Mark Carvell United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk> tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062<tel:%2B44%20%280%29%2020%207211%206062> On 1 February 2016 at 13:22, Finn Petersen <FinPet@erst.dk<mailto:FinPet@erst.dk>> wrote: Dear Becky, Co-chairs, all, As we have stated in the Danish comments to the CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal, we fully support Recommendation 11. We believe it is a carefully drafted compromise, which we hoped (and still do) would achieve the support such a compromise deserves in order to move the CCWG proposal forward. We would also like to remind colleagues that the 2/3 threshold for the ICANN Board rejecting GAC consensus advice was agreed by the GAC in the GAC Communiqué Dublin. However, we feel Becky’s proposal is a very constructive way forward and is worth discussing further. It would also eliminate the need to do a poll at the CCWG-meeting tomorrow morning. It would be unfortunate go down that road at this moment in time as it seems that Becky’s proposal addresses some of the concerns expressed. Also it is not clear to us whether the result (based on the recent discussion on the list) would take us any further in our work. ICANN’s communities need not be further divided – it is time for convergence and compromise! Best, Finn Kind regards Finn Petersen Director of International ICT Rellations DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000<tel:%2B45%203529%201000> Direct: +45 3529 1013<tel:%2B45%203529%201013> Mobile: +45 2072 7131<tel:%2B45%202072%207131> E-mail: FinPet@erst.dk<mailto:FinPet@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH PPlease consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: 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>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 29. januar 2016 21:05 Til: Greg Shatan; Mueller, Milton L Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing 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 Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s 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://www.neustar.biz> From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community <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 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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
Grec I agree with you. The proposed alternative by Becky as further expanded by Mark is too difficult to understand AT THIS LATE STAGE OF work Regards Kavouss 2016-02-01 18:45 GMT+01:00 Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>:
Mark — in the Dublin breakout meetings for CCWG, the community decision group surfaced this idea:
Within the community decision process, each AC/SO would decide, using its own methods, one of four decisions:
it supports the proposed exercise of the community power, it objects to the exercise of the community power, It wishes to advise the other community participants if its views, but neither supports nor opposes, it wishes to remain silent on the matter.
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mark Carvell <mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk> Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 11:19 AM To: Finn Petersen <FinPet@erst.dk> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
Dear CCWG colleagues
As you know, the UK Government supports Recommendation 11. I believe there is support outside the GAC for the 2/3 threshold for rejection of GAC advice. I agree that there is potential in Becky's proposal for a compromise solution for obviating the double opportunity risk.
While the GAC would not participating in some potentially critical decisions under this arrangement, the community should recognise the value of the GAC providing advice in the form of guidance that *inter alia* recounts the rationale for its original advice to the Board.
I also suggest more generally that some formality is accorded to the process whereby any non-participating AC can provide advice, in order to ensure that such advice when received is duly recorded, taken fully into account and responded to, before the participating SO/ACs proceed to a decision.
Kind regards
Mark
Mark Carvell United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN
Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062
On 1 February 2016 at 13:22, Finn Petersen <FinPet@erst.dk> wrote:
Dear Becky, Co-chairs, all,
As we have stated in the Danish comments to the CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal, we fully support Recommendation 11. We believe it is a carefully drafted compromise, which we hoped (and still do) would achieve the support such a compromise deserves in order to move the CCWG proposal forward. We would also like to remind colleagues that the 2/3 threshold for the ICANN Board rejecting GAC consensus advice was agreed by the GAC in the GAC Communiqué Dublin.
*However*, we feel Becky’s proposal is a very constructive way forward and is worth discussing further. It would also eliminate the need to do a poll at the CCWG-meeting tomorrow morning. It would be unfortunate go down that road at this moment in time as it seems that Becky’s proposal addresses some of the concerns expressed. Also it is not clear to us whether the result (based on the recent discussion on the list) would take us any further in our work.
ICANN’s communities need not be further divided – it is time for convergence and compromise!
Best,
Finn
Kind regards
*Finn Petersen*
Director of International ICT Rellations
*DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY*
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 3529 1013
Mobile: +45 2072 7131 E-mail: FinPet@erst.dk www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
PPlease consider the environment before printing this email.
*Fra:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *På vegne af *Burr, Becky *Sendt:* 29. januar 2016 21:05 *Til:* Greg Shatan; Mueller, Milton L *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Emne:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
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 Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s 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 *Mobile:*+1.202.352.6367*/**neustar.biz* <http://www.neustar.biz>
*From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, January 29, 2016 at 2:38 PM *To: *"Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> *Cc: *Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@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> 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] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Friday, January 29, 2016 11:58 AM *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Cc:* 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> 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> 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 >:
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
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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
Thanks Steve. That's very helpful - need to build on this in procedural terms I suggest. Kind regards - appreciate your efforts as always! Mark Mark Carvell Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062 On 1 February 2016 at 17:45, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:
Mark — in the Dublin breakout meetings for CCWG, the community decision group surfaced this idea:
Within the community decision process, each AC/SO would decide, using its own methods, one of four decisions:
it supports the proposed exercise of the community power, it objects to the exercise of the community power, It wishes to advise the other community participants if its views, but neither supports nor opposes, it wishes to remain silent on the matter.
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mark Carvell <mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk> Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 11:19 AM To: Finn Petersen <FinPet@erst.dk> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
Dear CCWG colleagues
As you know, the UK Government supports Recommendation 11. I believe there is support outside the GAC for the 2/3 threshold for rejection of GAC advice. I agree that there is potential in Becky's proposal for a compromise solution for obviating the double opportunity risk.
While the GAC would not participating in some potentially critical decisions under this arrangement, the community should recognise the value of the GAC providing advice in the form of guidance that *inter alia* recounts the rationale for its original advice to the Board.
I also suggest more generally that some formality is accorded to the process whereby any non-participating AC can provide advice, in order to ensure that such advice when received is duly recorded, taken fully into account and responded to, before the participating SO/ACs proceed to a decision.
Kind regards
Mark
Mark Carvell United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN
Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062
On 1 February 2016 at 13:22, Finn Petersen <FinPet@erst.dk> wrote:
Dear Becky, Co-chairs, all,
As we have stated in the Danish comments to the CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal, we fully support Recommendation 11. We believe it is a carefully drafted compromise, which we hoped (and still do) would achieve the support such a compromise deserves in order to move the CCWG proposal forward. We would also like to remind colleagues that the 2/3 threshold for the ICANN Board rejecting GAC consensus advice was agreed by the GAC in the GAC Communiqué Dublin.
*However*, we feel Becky’s proposal is a very constructive way forward and is worth discussing further. It would also eliminate the need to do a poll at the CCWG-meeting tomorrow morning. It would be unfortunate go down that road at this moment in time as it seems that Becky’s proposal addresses some of the concerns expressed. Also it is not clear to us whether the result (based on the recent discussion on the list) would take us any further in our work.
ICANN’s communities need not be further divided – it is time for convergence and compromise!
Best,
Finn
Kind regards
*Finn Petersen*
Director of International ICT Rellations
*DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY*
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 3529 1013
Mobile: +45 2072 7131 E-mail: FinPet@erst.dk www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
PPlease consider the environment before printing this email.
*Fra:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *På vegne af *Burr, Becky *Sendt:* 29. januar 2016 21:05 *Til:* Greg Shatan; Mueller, Milton L *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Emne:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
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 Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s 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 *Mobile:*+1.202.352.6367*/**neustar.biz* <http://www.neustar.biz>
*From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, January 29, 2016 at 2:38 PM *To: *"Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> *Cc: *Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@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> 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] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Friday, January 29, 2016 11:58 AM *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Cc:* 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> 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> 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 >:
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
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi all, As we prepare for our upcoming call, I want to reiterate my support for Becky's suggestion. I must also remind everyone that the GNSO is highly unlikely to support inclusion of the 2/3 threshold. As I communicated to the CCWG last week, the GNSO's voting procedures would result in a "no" vote on Recommendation 11 if a poll were held today, and I don't see a willingness to change views on the 2/3 issue. Therefore, as a possible approach, I suggest we consider combining Kavouss' 60% proposal with Becky's proposal and trying to find consensus around that. Using 60% splits the difference between 2/3 and current practice, it is lower than the threshold rejected by the community last year, and lower than the threshold the U.S. Senate was told was "off the table." Otherwise, I think the only alternative to secure GNSO support is to leave the Board threshold at simple majority and include the rest of Recommendation 11, as required by NTIA. I unfortunately don't see another path to a successful and timely conclusion of our work that secures necessary support and avoids formal objection from our Chartering Organizations. Regards, Keith On Feb 1, 2016, at 1:32 PM, Mark Carvell <mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk>> wrote: Thanks Steve. That's very helpful - need to build on this in procedural terms I suggest. Kind regards - appreciate your efforts as always! Mark Mark Carvell Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk> tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062 On 1 February 2016 at 17:45, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: Mark — in the Dublin breakout meetings for CCWG, the community decision group surfaced this idea: Within the community decision process, each AC/SO would decide, using its own methods, one of four decisions: it supports the proposed exercise of the community power, it objects to the exercise of the community power, It wishes to advise the other community participants if its views, but neither supports nor opposes, it wishes to remain silent on the matter. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mark Carvell <mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk>> Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 11:19 AM To: Finn Petersen <FinPet@erst.dk<mailto:FinPet@erst.dk>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <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 Dear CCWG colleagues As you know, the UK Government supports Recommendation 11. I believe there is support outside the GAC for the 2/3 threshold for rejection of GAC advice. I agree that there is potential in Becky's proposal for a compromise solution for obviating the double opportunity risk. While the GAC would not participating in some potentially critical decisions under this arrangement, the community should recognise the value of the GAC providing advice in the form of guidance that inter alia recounts the rationale for its original advice to the Board. I also suggest more generally that some formality is accorded to the process whereby any non-participating AC can provide advice, in order to ensure that such advice when received is duly recorded, taken fully into account and responded to, before the participating SO/ACs proceed to a decision. Kind regards Mark Mark Carvell United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk> tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062<tel:%2B44%20%280%29%2020%207211%206062> On 1 February 2016 at 13:22, Finn Petersen <FinPet@erst.dk<mailto:FinPet@erst.dk>> wrote: Dear Becky, Co-chairs, all, As we have stated in the Danish comments to the CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal, we fully support Recommendation 11. We believe it is a carefully drafted compromise, which we hoped (and still do) would achieve the support such a compromise deserves in order to move the CCWG proposal forward. We would also like to remind colleagues that the 2/3 threshold for the ICANN Board rejecting GAC consensus advice was agreed by the GAC in the GAC Communiqué Dublin. However, we feel Becky’s proposal is a very constructive way forward and is worth discussing further. It would also eliminate the need to do a poll at the CCWG-meeting tomorrow morning. It would be unfortunate go down that road at this moment in time as it seems that Becky’s proposal addresses some of the concerns expressed. Also it is not clear to us whether the result (based on the recent discussion on the list) would take us any further in our work. ICANN’s communities need not be further divided – it is time for convergence and compromise! Best, Finn Kind regards Finn Petersen Director of International ICT Rellations DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000<tel:%2B45%203529%201000> Direct: +45 3529 1013<tel:%2B45%203529%201013> Mobile: +45 2072 7131<tel:%2B45%202072%207131> E-mail: FinPet@erst.dk<mailto:FinPet@erst.dk> http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH PPlease consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: 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>] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 29. januar 2016 21:05 Til: Greg Shatan; Mueller, Milton L Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing 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 Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s 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://www.neustar.biz> From: Greg Shatan <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>> Cc: Accountability Community <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 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6EopaZqiSVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI&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
Dear Becky, Further to my request sent to you during the call, pls kindly describe your proposal in a clear language which could results in breaking the Deadlock on Rec 11 as well as improve Rec 1. My proposal is merely relates to Rec 11 THESE TWO PROPOSALS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Pls also consider Malcolm proposal. However, any proposal which requires or involves structural changes within the existing structure of ICANN is outside the mandate of CCWG Regards Kavouss 2016-02-02 6:29 GMT+01:00 Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Hi all,
As we prepare for our upcoming call, I want to reiterate my support for Becky's suggestion. I must also remind everyone that the GNSO is highly unlikely to support inclusion of the 2/3 threshold.
As I communicated to the CCWG last week, the GNSO's voting procedures would result in a "no" vote on Recommendation 11 if a poll were held today, and I don't see a willingness to change views on the 2/3 issue.
Therefore, as a possible approach, I suggest we consider combining Kavouss' 60% proposal with Becky's proposal and trying to find consensus around that. Using 60% splits the difference between 2/3 and current practice, it is lower than the threshold rejected by the community last year, and lower than the threshold the U.S. Senate was told was "off the table."
Otherwise, I think the only alternative to secure GNSO support is to leave the Board threshold at simple majority and include the rest of Recommendation 11, as required by NTIA.
I unfortunately don't see another path to a successful and timely conclusion of our work that secures necessary support and avoids formal objection from our Chartering Organizations.
Regards, Keith
On Feb 1, 2016, at 1:32 PM, Mark Carvell <mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk> wrote:
Thanks Steve. That's very helpful - need to build on this in procedural terms I suggest.
Kind regards - appreciate your efforts as always!
Mark
Mark Carvell Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062
On 1 February 2016 at 17:45, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:
Mark — in the Dublin breakout meetings for CCWG, the community decision group surfaced this idea:
Within the community decision process, each AC/SO would decide, using its own methods, one of four decisions:
it supports the proposed exercise of the community power, it objects to the exercise of the community power, It wishes to advise the other community participants if its views, but neither supports nor opposes, it wishes to remain silent on the matter.
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mark Carvell <mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk> Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 11:19 AM To: Finn Petersen <FinPet@erst.dk> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
Dear CCWG colleagues
As you know, the UK Government supports Recommendation 11. I believe there is support outside the GAC for the 2/3 threshold for rejection of GAC advice. I agree that there is potential in Becky's proposal for a compromise solution for obviating the double opportunity risk.
While the GAC would not participating in some potentially critical decisions under this arrangement, the community should recognise the value of the GAC providing advice in the form of guidance that *inter alia* recounts the rationale for its original advice to the Board.
I also suggest more generally that some formality is accorded to the process whereby any non-participating AC can provide advice, in order to ensure that such advice when received is duly recorded, taken fully into account and responded to, before the participating SO/ACs proceed to a decision.
Kind regards
Mark
Mark Carvell United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN
Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062
On 1 February 2016 at 13:22, Finn Petersen <FinPet@erst.dk> wrote:
Dear Becky, Co-chairs, all,
As we have stated in the Danish comments to the CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal, we fully support Recommendation 11. We believe it is a carefully drafted compromise, which we hoped (and still do) would achieve the support such a compromise deserves in order to move the CCWG proposal forward. We would also like to remind colleagues that the 2/3 threshold for the ICANN Board rejecting GAC consensus advice was agreed by the GAC in the GAC Communiqué Dublin.
*However*, we feel Becky’s proposal is a very constructive way forward and is worth discussing further. It would also eliminate the need to do a poll at the CCWG-meeting tomorrow morning. It would be unfortunate go down that road at this moment in time as it seems that Becky’s proposal addresses some of the concerns expressed. Also it is not clear to us whether the result (based on the recent discussion on the list) would take us any further in our work.
ICANN’s communities need not be further divided – it is time for convergence and compromise!
Best,
Finn
Kind regards
*Finn Petersen*
Director of International ICT Rellations
*DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY*
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 3529 1013
Mobile: +45 2072 7131 E-mail: FinPet@erst.dk http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
PPlease consider the environment before printing this email.
*Fra:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *På vegne af *Burr, Becky *Sendt:* 29. januar 2016 21:05 *Til:* Greg Shatan; Mueller, Milton L *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Emne:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
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 Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s 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 *Mobile:*+1.202.352.6367*/**neustar.biz* <http://www.neustar.biz>
*From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, January 29, 2016 at 2:38 PM *To: *"Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> *Cc: *Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@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> 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] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Friday, January 29, 2016 11:58 AM *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Cc:* 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> 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> 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 >:
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
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:14:31AM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
THESE TWO PROPOSALS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
This is a new wrinkle. I don't see how it's true. Becky's proposal is completely compatible with 50%+1, 60% (+1?), 2/3, or even 100% thresholds for the board's support. Can you please explain why you think they are mutually exclusive? Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
I agree with Andrew. Logically, there is no reason they are mutually exclusive. Politically, they are quite interdependent. For some the willingness to accept 60% might very well be contingent on Becky's proposal being adopted. 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 -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:20 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:14:31AM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
THESE TWO PROPOSALS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
This is a new wrinkle. I don't see how it's true. Becky's proposal is completely compatible with 50%+1, 60% (+1?), 2/3, or even 100% thresholds for the board's support. Can you please explain why you think they are mutually exclusive? Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Andrew Dear All, I have just asked Becky to slightly modify her text by referring to" Board's Actions inregard with GAC aDVICE " and not ' GAC Advice" due to the fact that IRP could be invoked against Board's action and not an AC or a SO . She kindly confirmed that Second the alternative of 60% is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE with Her Proposal after editorial amendments mentioned above. We CAN NOT TAKE BOTH OF THEM AS TWO MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE OPTIONS Regards kAVOUSS 2016-02-02 15:32 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:
I agree with Andrew. Logically, there is no reason they are mutually exclusive. Politically, they are quite interdependent. For some the willingness to accept 60% might very well be contingent on Becky's proposal being adopted.
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
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:20 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:14:31AM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
THESE TWO PROPOSALS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
This is a new wrinkle. I don't see how it's true. Becky's proposal is completely compatible with 50%+1, 60% (+1?), 2/3, or even 100% thresholds for the board's support. Can you please explain why you think they are mutually exclusive?
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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
I disagree, we can most certainly and most easily take both, they are not exclusive, in fact the complement each other. el On 2016-02-02 16:47, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Andrew Dear All, I have just asked Becky to slightly modify her text by referring to" Board's Actions inregard with GAC aDVICE " and not ' GAC Advice" due to the fact that IRP could be invoked against Board's action and not an AC or a SO . She kindly confirmed that Second the alternative of 60% is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE with Her Proposal after editorial amendments mentioned above. We CAN NOT TAKE BOTH OF THEM AS TWO MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE OPTIONS Regards kAVOUSS
2016-02-02 15:32 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>:
I agree with Andrew. Logically, there is no reason they are mutually exclusive. Politically, they are quite interdependent. For some the willingness to accept 60% might very well be contingent on Becky's proposal being adopted.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Please read my two previous messages Tks Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Feb 2016, at 15:55, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
I disagree, we can most certainly and most easily take both, they are not exclusive, in fact the complement each other.
el
On 2016-02-02 16:47, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear Andrew Dear All, I have just asked Becky to slightly modify her text by referring to" Board's Actions inregard with GAC aDVICE " and not ' GAC Advice" due to the fact that IRP could be invoked against Board's action and not an AC or a SO . She kindly confirmed that Second the alternative of 60% is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE with Her Proposal after editorial amendments mentioned above. We CAN NOT TAKE BOTH OF THEM AS TWO MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE OPTIONS Regards kAVOUSS
2016-02-02 15:32 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>:
I agree with Andrew. Logically, there is no reason they are mutually exclusive. Politically, they are quite interdependent. For some the willingness to accept 60% might very well be contingent on Becky's proposal being adopted.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 03:47:56PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
I have just asked Becky to slightly modify her text by referring to" Board's Actions inregard with GAC aDVICE " and not ' GAC Advice" due to the fact that IRP could be invoked against Board's action and not an AC or a SO .
That all seems fine, but not directly relevant to the point I was trying to make.
Second the alternative of 60% is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE with Her Proposal after editorial amendments mentioned above. We CAN NOT TAKE BOTH OF THEM AS TWO MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE OPTIONS
Why? I don't get it. One proposal (yours) governs the level of support within the board to take a specific kind of decision. The other proposal (Becky's) governs how various bodies may interact when making such a decision. In this particular case, it is a rule that says that, if a particular body issues a specific kind of advice that triggers special handling by the board, that same body may not also participate in any reconsideration or other community actions of the board's subesquent actions. Since there is only one body that has the power to issue the specific kind of advice (the GAC), that's the body the rule applies to. I think it's not too much to say that, if we invent future ACs that function similarly, then similar rules would apply to them. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Dear Andrew Too much expectations. The issue was discussed and many participants clearly mentioned that their main concerns was not to empower GAC to participate in an IRP dealing with GAC advice as objecting SO/AC but could agree to retain 2/3, Based on that assumption I could agree to take Beck's proposal as an alternative , One SO should not have double gains and another AC left to a double loosing Pls be fair . One GAC member mentioned that the more concession by GAC the more asked by others This should be a WIN-WIN , Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Feb 2016, at 16:06, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 03:47:56PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: I have just asked Becky to slightly modify her text by referring to" Board's Actions inregard with GAC aDVICE " and not ' GAC Advice" due to the fact that IRP could be invoked against Board's action and not an AC or a SO .
That all seems fine, but not directly relevant to the point I was trying to make.
Second the alternative of 60% is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE with Her Proposal after editorial amendments mentioned above. We CAN NOT TAKE BOTH OF THEM AS TWO MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE OPTIONS
Why? I don't get it.
One proposal (yours) governs the level of support within the board to take a specific kind of decision.
The other proposal (Becky's) governs how various bodies may interact when making such a decision. In this particular case, it is a rule that says that, if a particular body issues a specific kind of advice that triggers special handling by the board, that same body may not also participate in any reconsideration or other community actions of the board's subesquent actions. Since there is only one body that has the power to issue the specific kind of advice (the GAC), that's the body the rule applies to. I think it's not too much to say that, if we invent future ACs that function similarly, then similar rules would apply to them.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Whether there are double gains or double losses depends on your starting point. The status quo is (1) GAC Advice must be supported by consensus, defined as general support with no formal objection; (2) a majority of the Board can reject GAC Advice after efforts to find a mutually acceptable solution; and (3) the GAC is purely advisory. The 3rd Draft Report language would (1) lock in consensus definition; (2) require a supermajority to reject GAC Advice; and (3) allow the GAC to participate in a decision-making as opposed to purely advisory role. So arguably that is ³double gains² for the GAC. The combined proposal would not reverse those double gains - it would still take more than a majority of the Board (60%) to reject GAC Advice and the GAC would still have the ability to make a call at some point about playing an other than purely advisory role. One issue that is complicating this discussion is that the GAC has not really made a decision about whether it will remain in a purely advisory role. If we had clarity on that point the discussions might be simpler. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz> On 2/2/16, 10:24 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Andrew Too much expectations. The issue was discussed and many participants clearly mentioned that their main concerns was not to empower GAC to participate in an IRP dealing with GAC advice as objecting SO/AC but could agree to retain 2/3, Based on that assumption I could agree to take Beck's proposal as an alternative , One SO should not have double gains and another AC left to a double loosing Pls be fair . One GAC member mentioned that the more concession by GAC the more asked by others This should be a WIN-WIN , Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Feb 2016, at 16:06, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 03:47:56PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: I have just asked Becky to slightly modify her text by referring to" Board's Actions inregard with GAC aDVICE " and not ' GAC Advice" due to the fact that IRP could be invoked against Board's action and not an AC or a SO .
That all seems fine, but not directly relevant to the point I was trying to make.
Second the alternative of 60% is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE with Her Proposal after editorial amendments mentioned above. We CAN NOT TAKE BOTH OF THEM AS TWO MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE OPTIONS
Why? I don't get it.
One proposal (yours) governs the level of support within the board to take a specific kind of decision.
The other proposal (Becky's) governs how various bodies may interact when making such a decision. In this particular case, it is a rule that says that, if a particular body issues a specific kind of advice that triggers special handling by the board, that same body may not also participate in any reconsideration or other community actions of the board's subesquent actions. Since there is only one body that has the power to issue the specific kind of advice (the GAC), that's the body the rule applies to. I think it's not too much to say that, if we invent future ACs that function similarly, then similar rules would apply to them.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=cyFvtav4Aujk9nK4X11 2hbkiNaKtUQyTGQCOZ6vx8fQ&s=zCPlzSTMRIRD4zargwkDzoCMUY5dV8sEsQikSDIZi_E&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=cyFvtav4Aujk9nK4X112hb kiNaKtUQyTGQCOZ6vx8fQ&s=zCPlzSTMRIRD4zargwkDzoCMUY5dV8sEsQikSDIZi_E&e=
Becky is correct. Let's try to find consensus around the combined Burr/Arasteh proposals. Regards, Keith -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 10:47 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh; Andrew Sullivan Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing Whether there are double gains or double losses depends on your starting point. The status quo is (1) GAC Advice must be supported by consensus, defined as general support with no formal objection; (2) a majority of the Board can reject GAC Advice after efforts to find a mutually acceptable solution; and (3) the GAC is purely advisory. The 3rd Draft Report language would (1) lock in consensus definition; (2) require a supermajority to reject GAC Advice; and (3) allow the GAC to participate in a decision-making as opposed to purely advisory role. So arguably that is ³double gains² for the GAC. The combined proposal would not reverse those double gains - it would still take more than a majority of the Board (60%) to reject GAC Advice and the GAC would still have the ability to make a call at some point about playing an other than purely advisory role. One issue that is complicating this discussion is that the GAC has not really made a decision about whether it will remain in a purely advisory role. If we had clarity on that point the discussions might be simpler. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz> On 2/2/16, 10:24 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Andrew Too much expectations. The issue was discussed and many participants clearly mentioned that their main concerns was not to empower GAC to participate in an IRP dealing with GAC advice as objecting SO/AC but could agree to retain 2/3, Based on that assumption I could agree to take Beck's proposal as an alternative , One SO should not have double gains and another AC left to a double loosing Pls be fair . One GAC member mentioned that the more concession by GAC the more asked by others This should be a WIN-WIN , Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Feb 2016, at 16:06, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 03:47:56PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: I have just asked Becky to slightly modify her text by referring to" Board's Actions inregard with GAC aDVICE " and not ' GAC Advice" due to the fact that IRP could be invoked against Board's action and not an AC or a SO .
That all seems fine, but not directly relevant to the point I was trying to make.
Second the alternative of 60% is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE with Her Proposal after editorial amendments mentioned above. We CAN NOT TAKE BOTH OF THEM AS TWO MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE OPTIONS
Why? I don't get it.
One proposal (yours) governs the level of support within the board to take a specific kind of decision.
The other proposal (Becky's) governs how various bodies may interact when making such a decision. In this particular case, it is a rule that says that, if a particular body issues a specific kind of advice that triggers special handling by the board, that same body may not also participate in any reconsideration or other community actions of the board's subesquent actions. Since there is only one body that has the power to issue the specific kind of advice (the GAC), that's the body the rule applies to. I think it's not too much to say that, if we invent future ACs that function similarly, then similar rules would apply to them.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=cyFvtav4Aujk9nK4X11 2hbkiNaKtUQyTGQCOZ6vx8fQ&s=zCPlzSTMRIRD4zargwkDzoCMUY5dV8sEsQikSDIZi_E&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=cyFvtav4Aujk9nK4X112hb kiNaKtUQyTGQCOZ6vx8fQ&s=zCPlzSTMRIRD4zargwkDzoCMUY5dV8sEsQikSDIZi_E&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:24:58PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
The issue was discussed and many participants clearly mentioned that their main concerns was not to empower GAC to participate in an IRP dealing with GAC advice as objecting SO/AC but could agree to retain 2/3,
I am not exactly sure which "the issue" we're talking about here, because it seems to me there are multiple interlocking issues: (a) the threshold at which the Board will need to vote/agree/whatever if it is to decide not to accept GAC consensus advice; (b) exactly how the board concludes that some advice from the GAC is in fact GAC consensus; (c) whether the GAC gets to be part of the decision-making at ICANN or remains merely advisory; (d) if GAC is part of the decision-making, whether it gets to participate in decisions affecting board decisions about GAC advice taken under item (b). Here's what I think is going on: On (a), we had previous proposals for the existing threshold (50%+1) and a higher threshold (2/3). Some have asserted that the 2/3 threshold is the GAC's position at Dublin, but in reviewing the materials I cannot find the proof of that. The 2/3 level was put in draft 3 subject conditions on (b). Some of the comments on draft 3 have argued that without changes at least to (d), the draft 3 proposal is no good. Others seem to have argued that anything above 50%+1 is not allowed (I think this is a position that has been attributed to the GNSO lately). And finally, you propose to split the difference and set it at 60%, which with the current numbers of the board assuming all are present means just one additional vote. On (b), draft 3 set the mechanism at the historical meaning of consensus that the board could use in making its determination. Previously, that had appeared controversial, and it was the adjustment to language that, it seemed to me, cause the "US Thanksgiving compromise" to be reached. That compromise was apparently not durable, but nobody now seems to be arguing that the board's criteria for considering something "GAC consensus advice" ought to be anything than full consensus with no formal objection. I hope we can leave this alone, but I think Malcolm's line of argument basically goes to this item. (c) is something that only the GAC can say, and it's vexing (as Becky pointed out) that we don't yet seem to have an answer from the GAC. I think at bottom it is this change to which Robin regularly objects, at least if I understand her arguments. (d) is the issue that Becky's proposal is designed to solve. Basically, her proposal is that, if the GAC decides to issue advice that would trigger (a), then it's not allowed to invoke its ability to do (c) as well. This has nothing to do with the threshold in (a). Instead, it's a branching function: which path does the GAC choose? Since only the GAC has the ability to choose one or the other, the rules only apply to the GAC; but I think they could in principle apply to any body that had this ability.
Based on that assumption I could agree to take Beck's proposal as an alternative ,
As you see from the above, your proposal and Becky's are not alternatives, but are mutually independent lines of argument. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Adrew You gave opened the Entire Recs 1 and 11 for discussion Good luck I do not think that was the issue given to the devoted group. If every body to be intentionally and expressly confused then the two above-mentioned RECs. to be opened entirely. Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Feb 2016, at 17:14, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:24:58PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: The issue was discussed and many participants clearly mentioned that their main concerns was not to empower GAC to participate in an IRP dealing with GAC advice as objecting SO/AC but could agree to retain 2/3,
I am not exactly sure which "the issue" we're talking about here, because it seems to me there are multiple interlocking issues:
(a) the threshold at which the Board will need to vote/agree/whatever if it is to decide not to accept GAC consensus advice;
(b) exactly how the board concludes that some advice from the GAC is in fact GAC consensus;
(c) whether the GAC gets to be part of the decision-making at ICANN or remains merely advisory;
(d) if GAC is part of the decision-making, whether it gets to participate in decisions affecting board decisions about GAC advice taken under item (b).
Here's what I think is going on:
On (a), we had previous proposals for the existing threshold (50%+1) and a higher threshold (2/3). Some have asserted that the 2/3 threshold is the GAC's position at Dublin, but in reviewing the materials I cannot find the proof of that. The 2/3 level was put in draft 3 subject conditions on (b). Some of the comments on draft 3 have argued that without changes at least to (d), the draft 3 proposal is no good. Others seem to have argued that anything above 50%+1 is not allowed (I think this is a position that has been attributed to the GNSO lately). And finally, you propose to split the difference and set it at 60%, which with the current numbers of the board assuming all are present means just one additional vote.
On (b), draft 3 set the mechanism at the historical meaning of consensus that the board could use in making its determination. Previously, that had appeared controversial, and it was the adjustment to language that, it seemed to me, cause the "US Thanksgiving compromise" to be reached. That compromise was apparently not durable, but nobody now seems to be arguing that the board's criteria for considering something "GAC consensus advice" ought to be anything than full consensus with no formal objection. I hope we can leave this alone, but I think Malcolm's line of argument basically goes to this item.
(c) is something that only the GAC can say, and it's vexing (as Becky pointed out) that we don't yet seem to have an answer from the GAC. I think at bottom it is this change to which Robin regularly objects, at least if I understand her arguments.
(d) is the issue that Becky's proposal is designed to solve. Basically, her proposal is that, if the GAC decides to issue advice that would trigger (a), then it's not allowed to invoke its ability to do (c) as well. This has nothing to do with the threshold in (a). Instead, it's a branching function: which path does the GAC choose? Since only the GAC has the ability to choose one or the other, the rules only apply to the GAC; but I think they could in principle apply to any body that had this ability.
Based on that assumption I could agree to take Beck's proposal as an alternative ,
As you see from the above, your proposal and Becky's are not alternatives, but are mutually independent lines of argument.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I don't think that's the intent or effect of Andrew's email. I think he was just setting the stage and working through an analysis to show his thinking, which with I generally agree. One could quibble about whether they are independent or complementary, but they are not "mutually exclusive" as a matter of analysis. As a bargaining position, it is valid to say that they are mutually exclusive. It is equally valid to say that they are a package. For that matter, it's also valid bargaining position to say that the only acceptable package is Becky's proposal and no increase in the voting threshold. And it's valid to say that we want to keep the voting threshold at simple majority and we don't really care about Becky's proposal (so we'll take it if it's there, but give it up if it holds the line at simple majority). It's all fine and good to show our opening positions -- but where do we go from there? In any event, this is an interlinked issue of 1, 10 and 11, so one can't say that any of these are truly "closed" until they are all closed. But that doesn't mean everything is back on the table. Greg On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Adrew You gave opened the Entire Recs 1 and 11 for discussion Good luck I do not think that was the issue given to the devoted group. If every body to be intentionally and expressly confused then the two above-mentioned RECs. to be opened entirely. Tks Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Feb 2016, at 17:14, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:24:58PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: The issue was discussed and many participants clearly mentioned that their main concerns was not to empower GAC to participate in an IRP dealing with GAC advice as objecting SO/AC but could agree to retain 2/3,
I am not exactly sure which "the issue" we're talking about here, because it seems to me there are multiple interlocking issues:
(a) the threshold at which the Board will need to vote/agree/whatever if it is to decide not to accept GAC consensus advice;
(b) exactly how the board concludes that some advice from the GAC is in fact GAC consensus;
(c) whether the GAC gets to be part of the decision-making at ICANN or remains merely advisory;
(d) if GAC is part of the decision-making, whether it gets to participate in decisions affecting board decisions about GAC advice taken under item (b).
Here's what I think is going on:
On (a), we had previous proposals for the existing threshold (50%+1) and a higher threshold (2/3). Some have asserted that the 2/3 threshold is the GAC's position at Dublin, but in reviewing the materials I cannot find the proof of that. The 2/3 level was put in draft 3 subject conditions on (b). Some of the comments on draft 3 have argued that without changes at least to (d), the draft 3 proposal is no good. Others seem to have argued that anything above 50%+1 is not allowed (I think this is a position that has been attributed to the GNSO lately). And finally, you propose to split the difference and set it at 60%, which with the current numbers of the board assuming all are present means just one additional vote.
On (b), draft 3 set the mechanism at the historical meaning of consensus that the board could use in making its determination. Previously, that had appeared controversial, and it was the adjustment to language that, it seemed to me, cause the "US Thanksgiving compromise" to be reached. That compromise was apparently not durable, but nobody now seems to be arguing that the board's criteria for considering something "GAC consensus advice" ought to be anything than full consensus with no formal objection. I hope we can leave this alone, but I think Malcolm's line of argument basically goes to this item.
(c) is something that only the GAC can say, and it's vexing (as Becky pointed out) that we don't yet seem to have an answer from the GAC. I think at bottom it is this change to which Robin regularly objects, at least if I understand her arguments.
(d) is the issue that Becky's proposal is designed to solve. Basically, her proposal is that, if the GAC decides to issue advice that would trigger (a), then it's not allowed to invoke its ability to do (c) as well. This has nothing to do with the threshold in (a). Instead, it's a branching function: which path does the GAC choose? Since only the GAC has the ability to choose one or the other, the rules only apply to the GAC; but I think they could in principle apply to any body that had this ability.
Based on that assumption I could agree to take Beck's proposal as an alternative ,
As you see from the above, your proposal and Becky's are not alternatives, but are mutually independent lines of argument.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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
Well said. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 12:25 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing I don't think that's the intent or effect of Andrew's email. I think he was just setting the stage and working through an analysis to show his thinking, which with I generally agree. One could quibble about whether they are independent or complementary, but they are not "mutually exclusive" as a matter of analysis. As a bargaining position, it is valid to say that they are mutually exclusive. It is equally valid to say that they are a package. For that matter, it's also valid bargaining position to say that the only acceptable package is Becky's proposal and no increase in the voting threshold. And it's valid to say that we want to keep the voting threshold at simple majority and we don't really care about Becky's proposal (so we'll take it if it's there, but give it up if it holds the line at simple majority). It's all fine and good to show our opening positions -- but where do we go from there? In any event, this is an interlinked issue of 1, 10 and 11, so one can't say that any of these are truly "closed" until they are all closed. But that doesn't mean everything is back on the table. Greg On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Adrew You gave opened the Entire Recs 1 and 11 for discussion Good luck I do not think that was the issue given to the devoted group. If every body to be intentionally and expressly confused then the two above-mentioned RECs. to be opened entirely. Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Feb 2016, at 17:14, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:24:58PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: The issue was discussed and many participants clearly mentioned that their main concerns was not to empower GAC to participate in an IRP dealing with GAC advice as objecting SO/AC but could agree to retain 2/3,
I am not exactly sure which "the issue" we're talking about here, because it seems to me there are multiple interlocking issues:
(a) the threshold at which the Board will need to vote/agree/whatever if it is to decide not to accept GAC consensus advice;
(b) exactly how the board concludes that some advice from the GAC is in fact GAC consensus;
(c) whether the GAC gets to be part of the decision-making at ICANN or remains merely advisory;
(d) if GAC is part of the decision-making, whether it gets to participate in decisions affecting board decisions about GAC advice taken under item (b).
Here's what I think is going on:
On (a), we had previous proposals for the existing threshold (50%+1) and a higher threshold (2/3). Some have asserted that the 2/3 threshold is the GAC's position at Dublin, but in reviewing the materials I cannot find the proof of that. The 2/3 level was put in draft 3 subject conditions on (b). Some of the comments on draft 3 have argued that without changes at least to (d), the draft 3 proposal is no good. Others seem to have argued that anything above 50%+1 is not allowed (I think this is a position that has been attributed to the GNSO lately). And finally, you propose to split the difference and set it at 60%, which with the current numbers of the board assuming all are present means just one additional vote.
On (b), draft 3 set the mechanism at the historical meaning of consensus that the board could use in making its determination. Previously, that had appeared controversial, and it was the adjustment to language that, it seemed to me, cause the "US Thanksgiving compromise" to be reached. That compromise was apparently not durable, but nobody now seems to be arguing that the board's criteria for considering something "GAC consensus advice" ought to be anything than full consensus with no formal objection. I hope we can leave this alone, but I think Malcolm's line of argument basically goes to this item.
(c) is something that only the GAC can say, and it's vexing (as Becky pointed out) that we don't yet seem to have an answer from the GAC. I think at bottom it is this change to which Robin regularly objects, at least if I understand her arguments.
(d) is the issue that Becky's proposal is designed to solve. Basically, her proposal is that, if the GAC decides to issue advice that would trigger (a), then it's not allowed to invoke its ability to do (c) as well. This has nothing to do with the threshold in (a). Instead, it's a branching function: which path does the GAC choose? Since only the GAC has the ability to choose one or the other, the rules only apply to the GAC; but I think they could in principle apply to any body that had this ability.
Based on that assumption I could agree to take Beck's proposal as an alternative ,
As you see from the above, your proposal and Becky's are not alternatives, but are mutually independent lines of argument.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> _______________________________________________
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<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<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
Agreed. Concerns around the “interlinkage” of 1, 10 and 11 were clearly signaled within the CCWG prior to the finalization of Version 3 and reinforced again in the GNSO comments. This is not a new development. I hope that the Arasteh/Burr combo will help us move this forward to a resolution. Regards, Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Schaefer, Brett Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 12:41 PM To: Greg Shatan; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing Well said. From: 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: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 12:25 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh 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 I don't think that's the intent or effect of Andrew's email. I think he was just setting the stage and working through an analysis to show his thinking, which with I generally agree. One could quibble about whether they are independent or complementary, but they are not "mutually exclusive" as a matter of analysis. As a bargaining position, it is valid to say that they are mutually exclusive. It is equally valid to say that they are a package. For that matter, it's also valid bargaining position to say that the only acceptable package is Becky's proposal and no increase in the voting threshold. And it's valid to say that we want to keep the voting threshold at simple majority and we don't really care about Becky's proposal (so we'll take it if it's there, but give it up if it holds the line at simple majority). It's all fine and good to show our opening positions -- but where do we go from there? In any event, this is an interlinked issue of 1, 10 and 11, so one can't say that any of these are truly "closed" until they are all closed. But that doesn't mean everything is back on the table. Greg On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Adrew You gave opened the Entire Recs 1 and 11 for discussion Good luck I do not think that was the issue given to the devoted group. If every body to be intentionally and expressly confused then the two above-mentioned RECs. to be opened entirely. Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Feb 2016, at 17:14, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:24:58PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: The issue was discussed and many participants clearly mentioned that their main concerns was not to empower GAC to participate in an IRP dealing with GAC advice as objecting SO/AC but could agree to retain 2/3,
I am not exactly sure which "the issue" we're talking about here, because it seems to me there are multiple interlocking issues:
(a) the threshold at which the Board will need to vote/agree/whatever if it is to decide not to accept GAC consensus advice;
(b) exactly how the board concludes that some advice from the GAC is in fact GAC consensus;
(c) whether the GAC gets to be part of the decision-making at ICANN or remains merely advisory;
(d) if GAC is part of the decision-making, whether it gets to participate in decisions affecting board decisions about GAC advice taken under item (b).
Here's what I think is going on:
On (a), we had previous proposals for the existing threshold (50%+1) and a higher threshold (2/3). Some have asserted that the 2/3 threshold is the GAC's position at Dublin, but in reviewing the materials I cannot find the proof of that. The 2/3 level was put in draft 3 subject conditions on (b). Some of the comments on draft 3 have argued that without changes at least to (d), the draft 3 proposal is no good. Others seem to have argued that anything above 50%+1 is not allowed (I think this is a position that has been attributed to the GNSO lately). And finally, you propose to split the difference and set it at 60%, which with the current numbers of the board assuming all are present means just one additional vote.
On (b), draft 3 set the mechanism at the historical meaning of consensus that the board could use in making its determination. Previously, that had appeared controversial, and it was the adjustment to language that, it seemed to me, cause the "US Thanksgiving compromise" to be reached. That compromise was apparently not durable, but nobody now seems to be arguing that the board's criteria for considering something "GAC consensus advice" ought to be anything than full consensus with no formal objection. I hope we can leave this alone, but I think Malcolm's line of argument basically goes to this item.
(c) is something that only the GAC can say, and it's vexing (as Becky pointed out) that we don't yet seem to have an answer from the GAC. I think at bottom it is this change to which Robin regularly objects, at least if I understand her arguments.
(d) is the issue that Becky's proposal is designed to solve. Basically, her proposal is that, if the GAC decides to issue advice that would trigger (a), then it's not allowed to invoke its ability to do (c) as well. This has nothing to do with the threshold in (a). Instead, it's a branching function: which path does the GAC choose? Since only the GAC has the ability to choose one or the other, the rules only apply to the GAC; but I think they could in principle apply to any body that had this ability.
Based on that assumption I could agree to take Beck's proposal as an alternative ,
As you see from the above, your proposal and Becky's are not alternatives, but are mutually independent lines of argument.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> _______________________________________________
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
+ 1 Greg, Brett and Keith On 02/02/2016 09:52, Drazek, Keith wrote:
Agreed.
Concerns around the “interlinkage” of 1, 10 and 11 were clearly signaled within the CCWG prior to the finalization of Version 3 and reinforced again in the GNSO comments. This is not a new development.
I hope that the Arasteh/Burr combo will help us move this forward to a resolution.
Regards,
Keith
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Schaefer, Brett *Sent:* Tuesday, February 02, 2016 12:41 PM *To:* Greg Shatan; Kavouss Arasteh *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
Well said.
*From:*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:* Tuesday, February 02, 2016 12:25 PM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh *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
I don't think that's the intent or effect of Andrew's email. I think he was just setting the stage and working through an analysis to show his thinking, which with I generally agree. One could quibble about whether they are independent or complementary, but they are not "mutually exclusive" as a matter of analysis.
As a bargaining position, it is valid to say that they are mutually exclusive. It is equally valid to say that they are a package. For that matter, it's also valid bargaining position to say that the only acceptable package is Becky's proposal and no increase in the voting threshold. And it's valid to say that we want to keep the voting threshold at simple majority and we don't really care about Becky's proposal (so we'll take it if it's there, but give it up if it holds the line at simple majority). It's all fine and good to show our opening positions -- but where do we go from there?
In any event, this is an interlinked issue of 1, 10 and 11, so one can't say that any of these are truly "closed" until they are all closed. But that doesn't mean everything is back on the table.
Greg
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Adrew You gave opened the Entire Recs 1 and 11 for discussion Good luck I do not think that was the issue given to the devoted group. If every body to be intentionally and expressly confused then the two above-mentioned RECs. to be opened entirely. Tks Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Feb 2016, at 17:14, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:24:58PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: The issue was discussed and many participants clearly mentioned that their main concerns was not to empower GAC to participate in an IRP dealing with GAC advice as objecting SO/AC but could agree to retain 2/3,
I am not exactly sure which "the issue" we're talking about here, because it seems to me there are multiple interlocking issues:
(a) the threshold at which the Board will need to vote/agree/whatever if it is to decide not to accept GAC consensus advice;
(b) exactly how the board concludes that some advice from the GAC is in fact GAC consensus;
(c) whether the GAC gets to be part of the decision-making at ICANN or remains merely advisory;
(d) if GAC is part of the decision-making, whether it gets to participate in decisions affecting board decisions about GAC advice taken under item (b).
Here's what I think is going on:
On (a), we had previous proposals for the existing threshold (50%+1) and a higher threshold (2/3). Some have asserted that the 2/3 threshold is the GAC's position at Dublin, but in reviewing the materials I cannot find the proof of that. The 2/3 level was put in draft 3 subject conditions on (b). Some of the comments on draft 3 have argued that without changes at least to (d), the draft 3 proposal is no good. Others seem to have argued that anything above 50%+1 is not allowed (I think this is a position that has been attributed to the GNSO lately). And finally, you propose to split the difference and set it at 60%, which with the current numbers of the board assuming all are present means just one additional vote.
On (b), draft 3 set the mechanism at the historical meaning of consensus that the board could use in making its determination. Previously, that had appeared controversial, and it was the adjustment to language that, it seemed to me, cause the "US Thanksgiving compromise" to be reached. That compromise was apparently not durable, but nobody now seems to be arguing that the board's criteria for considering something "GAC consensus advice" ought to be anything than full consensus with no formal objection. I hope we can leave this alone, but I think Malcolm's line of argument basically goes to this item.
(c) is something that only the GAC can say, and it's vexing (as Becky pointed out) that we don't yet seem to have an answer from the GAC. I think at bottom it is this change to which Robin regularly objects, at least if I understand her arguments.
(d) is the issue that Becky's proposal is designed to solve. Basically, her proposal is that, if the GAC decides to issue advice that would trigger (a), then it's not allowed to invoke its ability to do (c) as well. This has nothing to do with the threshold in (a). Instead, it's a branching function: which path does the GAC choose? Since only the GAC has the ability to choose one or the other, the rules only apply to the GAC; but I think they could in principle apply to any body that had this ability.
Based on that assumption I could agree to take Beck's proposal as an alternative ,
As you see from the above, your proposal and Becky's are not alternatives, but are mutually independent lines of argument.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Brett* *Schaefer*/ Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy/ The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
_______________________________________________
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
-- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Hi, On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 06:06:58PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
You gave opened the Entire Recs 1 and 11 for discussion
That isn't my intention. It seems to me that these are the issues people are discussing. I don't think it's helpful to try on procedural grounds to artificially restrict this to recommendation x or y when clearly the issue that some people has involves the interplay of more than one of what's in draft 3. The goal is to complete the document, not to stick to the rules.
If every body to be intentionally and expressly confused then the two above-mentioned RECs. to be opened entirely.
I was rather trying to pick apart different threads I observe, in the hope of reducing confusion. I regret that I was not successful in this case (although one might be excused for wondering whether that is one's only regret at this stage! :-) ) Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Why? You say that but you don’t explain it.
From my perspective, you can certainly have a 60% rule for the Board’s actions with regard to GAC advice AND a rule that does not let the GAC participate in any Empowered Community decision in which the EC seeks to challenge/change/modify what the Board has done. Please explain
Paul 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: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:48 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing Dear Andrew Dear All, I have just asked Becky to slightly modify her text by referring to" Board's Actions inregard with GAC aDVICE " and not ' GAC Advice" due to the fact that IRP could be invoked against Board's action and not an AC or a SO . She kindly confirmed that Second the alternative of 60% is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE with Her Proposal after editorial amendments mentioned above. We CAN NOT TAKE BOTH OF THEM AS TWO MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE OPTIONS Regards kAVOUSS 2016-02-02 15:32 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> >: I agree with Andrew. Logically, there is no reason they are mutually exclusive. Politically, they are quite interdependent. For some the willingness to accept 60% might very well be contingent on Becky's proposal being adopted. 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 -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> ] Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:20 AM To: 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 On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:14:31AM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
THESE TWO PROPOSALS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
This is a new wrinkle. I don't see how it's true. Becky's proposal is completely compatible with 50%+1, 60% (+1?), 2/3, or even 100% thresholds for the board's support. Can you please explain why you think they are mutually exclusive? 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
Dear Paul Not at all This double gain for one SO and double loose for another SC UNACCEPTABLE. Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Feb 2016, at 16:08, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Why? You say that but you don’t explain it.
From my perspective, you can certainly have a 60% rule for the Board’s actions with regard to GAC advice AND a rule that does not let the GAC participate in any Empowered Community decision in which the EC seeks to challenge/change/modify what the Board has done. Please explain
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 <image001.png>
From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:48 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
Dear Andrew Dear All, I have just asked Becky to slightly modify her text by referring to" Board's Actions inregard with GAC aDVICE " and not ' GAC Advice" due to the fact that IRP could be invoked against Board's action and not an AC or a SO . She kindly confirmed that Second the alternative of 60% is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE with Her Proposal after editorial amendments mentioned above. We CAN NOT TAKE BOTH OF THEM AS TWO MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE OPTIONS Regards kAVOUSS
2016-02-02 15:32 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>: I agree with Andrew. Logically, there is no reason they are mutually exclusive. Politically, they are quite interdependent. For some the willingness to accept 60% might very well be contingent on Becky's proposal being adopted.
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
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:20 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:14:31AM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
THESE TWO PROPOSALS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
This is a new wrinkle. I don't see how it's true. Becky's proposal is completely compatible with 50%+1, 60% (+1?), 2/3, or even 100% thresholds for the board's support. Can you please explain why you think they are mutually exclusive?
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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
OH … so you are just objecting politically, not in practice. Sorry … disagree. It isn’t a double gain for an SO and a double loss for an AC. To the contrary, the GAC gets exactly what it wants – preferential consideration of its advice by the Board – and the community gets what it needs – a check on the possibility of GAC overreach that cannot be thwarted by the GAC as an EC member. Happily, many GAC members disagree with you – at least the two contributors from Denmark and the UK have spoken somewhat favorably about this solution. Likewise (and I’m reading his mind again) even Jorge seems to think this solution has promise. Cheers Paul 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: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 10:14 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing Dear Paul Not at all This double gain for one SO and double loose for another SC UNACCEPTABLE. Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 2 Feb 2016, at 16:08, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote: Why? You say that but you don’t explain it.
From my perspective, you can certainly have a 60% rule for the Board’s actions with regard to GAC advice AND a rule that does not let the GAC participate in any Empowered Community decision in which the EC seeks to challenge/change/modify what the Board has done. Please explain
Paul 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...> <image001.png> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:48 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > Cc: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> >; 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 Dear Andrew Dear All, I have just asked Becky to slightly modify her text by referring to" Board's Actions inregard with GAC aDVICE " and not ' GAC Advice" due to the fact that IRP could be invoked against Board's action and not an AC or a SO . She kindly confirmed that Second the alternative of 60% is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE with Her Proposal after editorial amendments mentioned above. We CAN NOT TAKE BOTH OF THEM AS TWO MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE OPTIONS Regards kAVOUSS 2016-02-02 15:32 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> >: I agree with Andrew. Logically, there is no reason they are mutually exclusive. Politically, they are quite interdependent. For some the willingness to accept 60% might very well be contingent on Becky's proposal being adopted. 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 -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> ] Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:20 AM To: 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 On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:14:31AM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
THESE TWO PROPOSALS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
This is a new wrinkle. I don't see how it's true. Becky's proposal is completely compatible with 50%+1, 60% (+1?), 2/3, or even 100% thresholds for the board's support. Can you please explain why you think they are mutually exclusive? 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
Dear Paul Pls do not attach any other thing that principle, I object to double gain for one SO snd double loose for one AC on the principle of burden sharing and equal treatments of all SO and AC unless one believes that one should gain on two criteria and another one should loose on those two. NOTHING MIRE THAN THAT PLS! Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Feb 2016, at 16:24, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
OH … so you are just objecting politically, not in practice.
Sorry … disagree. It isn’t a double gain for an SO and a double loss for an AC. To the contrary, the GAC gets exactly what it wants – preferential consideration of its advice by the Board – and the community gets what it needs – a check on the possibility of GAC overreach that cannot be thwarted by the GAC as an EC member.
Happily, many GAC members disagree with you – at least the two contributors from Denmark and the UK have spoken somewhat favorably about this solution. Likewise (and I’m reading his mind again) even Jorge seems to think this solution has promise.
Cheers 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 <image001.png>
From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 10:14 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
Dear Paul Not at all This double gain for one SO and double loose for another SC UNACCEPTABLE. Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Feb 2016, at 16:08, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Why? You say that but you don’t explain it.
From my perspective, you can certainly have a 60% rule for the Board’s actions with regard to GAC advice AND a rule that does not let the GAC participate in any Empowered Community decision in which the EC seeks to challenge/change/modify what the Board has done. Please explain
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 <image001.png>
From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:48 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
Dear Andrew Dear All, I have just asked Becky to slightly modify her text by referring to" Board's Actions inregard with GAC aDVICE " and not ' GAC Advice" due to the fact that IRP could be invoked against Board's action and not an AC or a SO . She kindly confirmed that Second the alternative of 60% is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE with Her Proposal after editorial amendments mentioned above. We CAN NOT TAKE BOTH OF THEM AS TWO MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE OPTIONS Regards kAVOUSS
2016-02-02 15:32 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>: I agree with Andrew. Logically, there is no reason they are mutually exclusive. Politically, they are quite interdependent. For some the willingness to accept 60% might very well be contingent on Becky's proposal being adopted.
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
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:20 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:14:31AM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
THESE TWO PROPOSALS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
This is a new wrinkle. I don't see how it's true. Becky's proposal is completely compatible with 50%+1, 60% (+1?), 2/3, or even 100% thresholds for the board's support. Can you please explain why you think they are mutually exclusive?
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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
Agree with Paul¹s last sentence. Thanks‹ J. On 2/2/16, 8:32 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
I agree with Andrew. Logically, there is no reason they are mutually exclusive. Politically, they are quite interdependent. For some the willingness to accept 60% might very well be contingent on Becky's proposal being adopted.
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
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:20 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:14:31AM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
THESE TWO PROPOSALS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
This is a new wrinkle. I don't see how it's true. Becky's proposal is completely compatible with 50%+1, 60% (+1?), 2/3, or even 100% thresholds for the board's support. Can you please explain why you think they are mutually exclusive?
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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
It's one of my favourites as well. Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Feb 2016, at 18:21, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Agree with Paul¹s last sentence.
Thanks‹
J.
On 2/2/16, 8:32 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
I agree with Andrew. Logically, there is no reason they are mutually exclusive. Politically, they are quite interdependent. For some the willingness to accept 60% might very well be contingent on Becky's proposal being adopted.
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
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:20 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:14:31AM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: THESE TWO PROPOSALS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
This is a new wrinkle. I don't see how it's true. Becky's proposal is completely compatible with 50%+1, 60% (+1?), 2/3, or even 100% thresholds for the board's support. Can you please explain why you think they are mutually exclusive?
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Agree also - and + 1 to Paul's second point below. On 02/02/2016 06:32, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
I agree with Andrew. Logically, there is no reason they are mutually exclusive. Politically, they are quite interdependent. For some the willingness to accept 60% might very well be contingent on Becky's proposal being adopted.
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
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:20 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:14:31AM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
THESE TWO PROPOSALS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. This is a new wrinkle. I don't see how it's true. Becky's proposal is completely compatible with 50%+1, 60% (+1?), 2/3, or even 100% thresholds for the board's support. Can you please explain why you think they are mutually exclusive?
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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
-- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On 02/02/2016 05:29, Drazek, Keith wrote:
Hi all,
As we prepare for our upcoming call, I want to reiterate my support for Becky's suggestion. I must also remind everyone that the GNSO is highly unlikely to support inclusion of the 2/3 threshold.
I believe that one of the reasons for continuing opposition is that neither of the two proposed compromise suggestions (Becky's, or 60% threshold) actually address the core issue motivating opposition. That is the fear that a supermajority rule will also create a presumption that the Board must accept GAC advice, thereby changing how they evaluate the advice they receive. In other words, the fear that we are changing not just how the Board decides as a whole (from 50/50 to 2/3 or 60%) but are also accidentally changing the duty of the Directors individually. The addition of the following text might help allieviate that concern: "This clause does not create a presumption that the Board shall accept such advice, or change the criteria for how it shall be evaluated." This text seeks to avoid a possible unintended consequence of adopting the supermajority rule. In that sense, it is similar to the approach we took when we said that in adopting the 2/3 rule we didn't want to accidentally force the Board to conduct its affairs through formal voting. It makes clear that the only thing we are changing is the voting threshold, nothing more. Possibly lawyers could offer alternative wording that achieves the same thing, but first we need to agree that we do not intend to change anything other than the voting threshold. I offer this in the spirit of compromise, and I hope it will be given fair consideration. Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
Hi, On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 08:24:56AM +0000, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
That is the fear that a supermajority rule will also create a presumption that the Board must accept GAC advice
I am certainly prepared to believe that that is something inspiring some people's concern, but I can think of lots of reasons people could be concerned. Moreover, under at least one plausible reading, that presumption is there today: if the GAC offers consensus advice, the Board has to do something under which the default path is arguably "accept". But in any case,
The addition of the following text might help allieviate that concern:
"This clause does not create a presumption that the Board shall accept such advice, or change the criteria for how it shall be evaluated."
I'm a little uncomfortable with all the ways the document keeps growing descriptions of what it is not. It seems to me that there are dozens of ways to misconstrue something and to misunderstand the intent, if that is the goal. What I like about Becky's proposal is that it offers a specific functional remedy to the "two bites" problem: if the GAC wants to take bite 1, it can't have bite 2; and if it plans to take bite 2 then it can't have already bitten. We don't need to rely on intentions or presumptions or other states of mind, but instead follow the rules to govern behaviour. I think that makes for a clearer document. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
On 02/02/2016 14:26, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
The addition of the following text might help allieviate that concern:
"This clause does not create a presumption that the Board shall accept such advice, or change the criteria for how it shall be evaluated."
I'm a little uncomfortable with all the ways the document keeps growing descriptions of what it is not.
Fair enough. I'm sure it can be stated in a positive fashion; I didn't expect this to be final bylaws text anyway. Can we agree the principle that we're only changing the voting threshold and not trying to create a new presumption of obedience, and leave it to the lawyers to come up with the best language to avoid any unintended consequences? Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
Malcolm I have no problem to just Lower the threshold but NOT excluding GAC from exercising its community power when an IRP is invoked in regard with GAC advice and at the same time lower the threshold from 2/3 to 60% Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Feb 2016, at 16:17, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 02/02/2016 14:26, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
The addition of the following text might help allieviate that concern:
"This clause does not create a presumption that the Board shall accept such advice, or change the criteria for how it shall be evaluated."
I'm a little uncomfortable with all the ways the document keeps growing descriptions of what it is not.
Fair enough. I'm sure it can be stated in a positive fashion; I didn't expect this to be final bylaws text anyway.
Can we agree the principle that we're only changing the voting threshold and not trying to create a new presumption of obedience, and leave it to the lawyers to come up with the best language to avoid any unintended consequences?
Malcolm.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 03:17:23PM +0000, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
Can we agree the principle that we're only changing the voting threshold and not trying to create a new presumption of obedience
I do not actually see how the presumption worry is motivated, but I don't care enough about this to argue. If it will make us go faster, I'm in favour; if it adds even one millisecond additional time to completion, I'm opposed. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
+1 J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz> On 2/2/16, 10:55 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 03:17:23PM +0000, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
Can we agree the principle that we're only changing the voting threshold and not trying to create a new presumption of obedience
I do not actually see how the presumption worry is motivated, but I don't care enough about this to argue. If it will make us go faster, I'm in favour; if it adds even one millisecond additional time to completion, I'm opposed.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=XeZKVf7ltEE1XS0lIZ8ik0 d8Fq4bb8uB8eHAhtIwcG8&s=rqp_PSPEtRngvqphpwUVXwobPKgFOnIQNDvF8dRJhPQ&e=
Malcolm Pls read my three/ mails Either lowering threshold or considering Becky, s editorially amended alternative in a mutually exclusive manner . Or you propose to just considering 60% threshold and forget about Becky, proposal. I totally disagree to consider both as complementary proposal since the discussion on call 81 was just about two thresholds; Simple majority or 2/3 . Then the 60% was proposed as a compromise. Pls read my several messages in this regard Regard Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Feb 2016, at 16:58, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
+1
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/2/16, 10:55 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 03:17:23PM +0000, Malcolm Hutty wrote: Can we agree the principle that we're only changing the voting threshold and not trying to create a new presumption of obedience
I do not actually see how the presumption worry is motivated, but I don't care enough about this to argue. If it will make us go faster, I'm in favour; if it adds even one millisecond additional time to completion, I'm opposed.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=XeZKVf7ltEE1XS0lIZ8ik0 d8Fq4bb8uB8eHAhtIwcG8&s=rqp_PSPEtRngvqphpwUVXwobPKgFOnIQNDvF8dRJhPQ&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
An easy example (by analogy) of how the presumption worry is motivated can be found in our own Fundamental Bylaw proposal. We have attached a higher value to these Fundamental Bylaws and the principles they express; we want to protect them against change or repeal. We think these Bylaws are special and have "got it right" on important matters, and we want to force extra consideration and support for any change. Put another way, if you disagree with a Fundamental Bylaw, we want to make it easier to fail and more challenging to succeed if you should decide to challenge it. As such, anyone considering such a challenge would need to think twice, improve their arguments and prepare to face a steeper climb -- or they could decide that these castle walls are too high. How did we elevate and protect these Bylaws? We have made it so that even a majority (usually a winning number) will lose -- by increasing the vote threshold to change them. A change to the GAC Advice voting threshold would have the same effect. A more attenuated analogy can be found in the US justice system. How do we protect the presumption of innocence in a criminal case and recognize that liberty, and not merely damages are at stake? We make it much more difficult to succeed. A criminal case requires that the prosecution prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt," while in a civil case, we require only a "preponderance of the evidence." Put another way, a civil case requires a simple majority of evidence on one side of the scales, while a criminal case requires a supermajority. Finally, I will say that after setting up and participating in a variety of voting structures over the years, it has almost become second nature to see a supermajority as a presumption that the object of that vote should be given greater deference. That is typically the intention when one puts a supermajority vote in. So going back and understanding why it would not be seen that way to others takes a little bit of doing -- but it is worthwhile, since persuading others is more challenging than convincing yourself you are right. Greg On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 03:17:23PM +0000, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
Can we agree the principle that we're only changing the voting threshold and not trying to create a new presumption of obedience
I do not actually see how the presumption worry is motivated, but I don't care enough about this to argue. If it will make us go faster, I'm in favour; if it adds even one millisecond additional time to completion, I'm opposed.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Yes On 2/2/16, 10:17 AM, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Malcolm Hutty" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 02/02/2016 14:26, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
The addition of the following text might help allieviate that concern:
"This clause does not create a presumption that the Board shall accept such advice, or change the criteria for how it shall be evaluated."
I'm a little uncomfortable with all the ways the document keeps growing descriptions of what it is not.
Fair enough. I'm sure it can be stated in a positive fashion; I didn't expect this to be final bylaws text anyway.
Can we agree the principle that we're only changing the voting threshold and not trying to create a new presumption of obedience, and leave it to the lawyers to come up with the best language to avoid any unintended consequences?
Malcolm.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I agree with including Malcolm's suggestion as a principle and guidance for the lawyers during the next phase of bylaw drafting. I believe his suggestion was reflected in several comments submitted by the GNSO and its constituent groups. But I also agree with Andrew...now is not the time to get bogged down on this. Regards, Keith -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Zuck Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 11:43 AM To: Malcolm Hutty; Andrew Sullivan; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing Yes On 2/2/16, 10:17 AM, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Malcolm Hutty" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 02/02/2016 14:26, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
The addition of the following text might help allieviate that concern:
"This clause does not create a presumption that the Board shall accept such advice, or change the criteria for how it shall be evaluated."
I'm a little uncomfortable with all the ways the document keeps growing descriptions of what it is not.
Fair enough. I'm sure it can be stated in a positive fashion; I didn't expect this to be final bylaws text anyway.
Can we agree the principle that we're only changing the voting threshold and not trying to create a new presumption of obedience, and leave it to the lawyers to come up with the best language to avoid any unintended consequences?
Malcolm.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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
If there were to be a process for non-participating AC's to provide advice, it seems that there should be a process for non-participating SO's to provide advice as well. It may seem unlikely for the SOs not to participate, but one never knows.... Greg On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Mark Carvell <mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk> wrote:
Dear CCWG colleagues
As you know, the UK Government supports Recommendation 11. I believe there is support outside the GAC for the 2/3 threshold for rejection of GAC advice. I agree that there is potential in Becky's proposal for a compromise solution for obviating the double opportunity risk.
While the GAC would not participating in some potentially critical decisions under this arrangement, the community should recognise the value of the GAC providing advice in the form of guidance that *inter alia* recounts the rationale for its original advice to the Board.
I also suggest more generally that some formality is accorded to the process whereby any non-participating AC can provide advice, in order to ensure that such advice when received is duly recorded, taken fully into account and responded to, before the participating SO/ACs proceed to a decision.
Kind regards
Mark
Mark Carvell United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN
Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062
On 1 February 2016 at 13:22, Finn Petersen <FinPet@erst.dk> wrote:
Dear Becky, Co-chairs, all,
As we have stated in the Danish comments to the CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal, we fully support Recommendation 11. We believe it is a carefully drafted compromise, which we hoped (and still do) would achieve the support such a compromise deserves in order to move the CCWG proposal forward. We would also like to remind colleagues that the 2/3 threshold for the ICANN Board rejecting GAC consensus advice was agreed by the GAC in the GAC Communiqué Dublin.
*However*, we feel Becky’s proposal is a very constructive way forward and is worth discussing further. It would also eliminate the need to do a poll at the CCWG-meeting tomorrow morning. It would be unfortunate go down that road at this moment in time as it seems that Becky’s proposal addresses some of the concerns expressed. Also it is not clear to us whether the result (based on the recent discussion on the list) would take us any further in our work.
ICANN’s communities need not be further divided – it is time for convergence and compromise!
Best,
Finn
Kind regards
*Finn Petersen*
Director of International ICT Rellations
*DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY*
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 3529 1013
Mobile: +45 2072 7131 E-mail: FinPet@erst.dk www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
*Fra:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *På vegne af *Burr, Becky *Sendt:* 29. januar 2016 21:05 *Til:* Greg Shatan; Mueller, Milton L *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Emne:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
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 Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s 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 *Mobile:* +1.202.352.6367 */* *neustar.biz* <http://www.neustar.biz>
*From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
*Date: *Friday, January 29, 2016 at 2:38 PM *To: *"Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> *Cc: *Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@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> 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] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Friday, January 29, 2016 11:58 AM *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Cc:* 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> 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> 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 >:
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
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Becky, can you explain in plain language how this would work for ccTLDs? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4
On 29 Jan 2016, at 22:05, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
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 Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s 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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz
Becky You see the legitimate question of Dr. There would be more questions That is why I suggest we take the simplest approach Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Feb 2016, at 16:44, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> wrote:
Becky,
can you explain in plain language how this would work for ccTLDs?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4
On 29 Jan 2016, at 22:05, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
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 Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s 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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
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
participants (25)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Andrew Sullivan -
Avri Doria -
Burr, Becky -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Drazek, Keith -
Edward Morris -
Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams -
Finn Petersen -
Greg Shatan -
James M. Bladel -
Jeff Neuman -
Jonathan Zuck -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Malcolm Hutty -
Mark Carvell -
Matthew Shears -
Mueller, Milton L -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Perez Galindo, Rafael -
Schaefer, Brett -
Seun Ojedeji -
Steve DelBianco