Dear Jorge, On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 05:03:15PM +0000, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
such a obligation to chose (only for the GAC) was never in any CCWG draft report.
Of course this has not appeard in any previous draft report. It is a clever new compromise that's being proposed to address previous apparently irreconcilable goals. If we restrict ourselves strictly only to what has appeared in any of the previous drafts, we will be unable to find the compromise necessary to deliver the CCWG-Accountability's task. That would, I think, be fatal to the IANA transition. It also, I think, would in the long run desperately weaken ICANN. I don't see how any of that is a winning strategy, so I think finding a way to compromise is needed.
It is inconsistent with the multistakeholder model and the principle of equal footing.
I don't see how. The GAC has always behaved differently than other stakeholder constituencies in ICANN, and the proposal formalises that role. It allows GAC to have a choice: behave like everyone else, and then participate in the equal footing you call out; or else behave in a way different to other constituency groups, and then be treated differently too. The analogy you have drawn with the *NSO is not apt, for two reasons. First, the NSOs (and particularly the GNSO) members have direct operational stake in the outcome of PDPs. Second, PDPs have a great deal of process associated with them before they render decisions, and that process includes a lot of public consultation. The same is not true of GAC advice. A more apt analogy to the GAC would be other ACs, and it seems to me that those ACs already labour under the same rules as the GAC would in case it decided not to take the "formal GAC advice" path. That really does follow the principle of equal footing. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com