Dear CCWG colleagues,

Notwithstanding the lack of consensus on recommendation 11 of the 3^rd draft report, I think it is beneficial to our discussion to remind ourselves of GAC's consensus text for Stress Test 18, which is part of the ICANN 54 GAC's Communiqué (Dublin):

"The discussions on Stress Test 18 have helped the GAC to have a better understanding of the different views on the issue. In assessing the different rationales presented so far related to Stress Test 18, the GAC considered:

• The need that each and every Advisory Committee ensures that the advice provided is clear and reflects the consensus view of the Committee;

• The need that each and every Advisory Committee should preserve its own autonomy in its definition of consensus;

• The value the Board attributes to receiving consensus advice;

• The recommendation of the BGRI WG, as reiterated by the ATRT2, to set the threshold for the ICANN Board to reject GAC advice to a 2/3 majority voting, consistent with the threshold established for rejection of ccNSO and GNSO PDP recommendations.

In view of the above, having considered concerns expressed by various parties, the GAC agreed to further work on the issue of Stress Test 18, and to submit any further input to the CCWG taking into account the timelines of the CCWG. GAC Members will continue to work within the CCWG to finalise the proposal for enhancing ICANN accountability."

Kind regards,

Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva

Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI)

Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil

T: + 55 61 2030-6609

Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva

Division of Information Society (DI)

Ministry of External Relations - Brazil

T: + 55 61 2030-6609

-----Mensagem original-----
De: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Kavouss Arasteh
Enviada em: terça-feira, 26 de janeiro de 2016 15:36
Para: Thomas Rickert
Cc: ACCT-Staff; Accountability Cross Community
Assunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability

Yes

Lack ok consensus on such an issue so delicate like Stress Test 18 and Rec. 11 in GAC is understandable thus we could make our best to finalise the Rec.

Regards

Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Jan 2016, at 18:12, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:

All,

Please note the GAC did not reject any of our recommendations, including recommendation 11. That is great news.

Kind regards,

Thomas

---

rickert.net

Am 26.01.2016 um 16:15 schrieb Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>:

When Leon’s email arrived last night the first thing I did after opening the attachment was scroll to Recommendation 11, because that is the one that most directly speaks to the GAC’s post-transition influence upon ICANN policy decisions, and also the one that has engendered the most controversy (finding almost no support, e.g., among members of the GNSO).

So I was of course astounded to see “There is no consensus within the GAC to adopt a formal position on this Recommendation”. That’s it, without even any further exposition on the divergent views within the GAC to provide a minimum of guidance.

This is of course a reminder of how difficult it is for the GAC to render advice under the current operating procedure of consensus (and why in the future the GAC might be tempted to lower or redefine that standard to bolster its input). It is also a sharp reminder that governmental representatives engaging in the CCWG’s process are expressing only the view of their nation and not any overall GAC position.

As for how the CCWG should proceed given that the GAC has no position on rec. 11, well given that it has missed its chance to register either support, objection, or recommendations for modification I think CCWG has no choice but to proceed based upon input from other Chartering Organizations, because waiting on the GAC is not feasible under the current timeline however it is measured.

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig

Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 9:33 AM

To: 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'; 'Accountability Cross Community'

Cc: 'ACCT-Staff'

Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability

I know that the Annex 11 is on for discussion today. Is it just me or does it seem to others near impossible to reach a conclusion on Annex 11 without the GAC’s input? Even if, in the end, we wind up not accepting their position I would have thought it essential to do so knowing what that position is.

Or is it the case that we are going to drive ahead and just proceed without the GAC because they can’t meet our timeline of consideration?

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@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 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>

<image001.png> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016>

From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía [mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx]

Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 8:15 PM