Hi, As long as we do as we are told, i am sure we can achieve a result that is acceptable to NTIA. What is obvious to me now, is that not only did the NTIA want a solution that was not dominated by governments, a goal I strongly agree with, they also did not want a solution where the GAC stands with equal footing as a stakeholder, which makes me uneasy. But we can be thankful, at least we now know what we must do it we want approval. Before now there was ambiguity because as long as the solution did not give government primacy I thought we would be ok. Now I realize we can't even have equality. This is not disarray but well ordered. We had one serious issue pending and now that has been taken off the table. We can expect that GAC will not be able to approval of the accountability proposal as I expect that will be at least one more member of the GAC disappointed enough to formally object to the solution as constrained by NTIA. So as long as the solution is acceptable to all the SOs and to ALAC, while still be ok with the latest NTIA condition, we should be successful at reaching the end of the discussion. We also have a good indication of the power of NTIA over ICANN as a backstop for any who doubted that power. Anytime the US speaks, ICANN jumps. We should rejoice and be thankful as we have less to decide upon. avri On 26-Nov-15 04:01, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Jordan is right.
Mr Strickling, from the beginning, it seems to me has done two things, both of which were intended to be, and objectively are, helpful.
1. Clearly set out the criteria under which the NTIA will transfer the legal oversight it has historically asserted over ICANN under statutory power, to the private sector (i.e. to the global stakeholder community.
2. Occasionally provided the odd 'nudge' in 'the right direction'
No-one who has attended ICANN meetings or CCWG F2F should be in any doubt of the wishes of the USG in regards to certain important matters in the developing proposal.
And I made sure to read his blog posts in this regard, too.
This intervention is simply another, carefully written and diplomatic, clie that tells us what we (the CCWG) need to do to unlock the achievement of transition.
The Government of the United States is 'first among equals' in this discussion.
Its views have to be given a different weight, as Jordan correctly notes.
Some appear to recommend the CCWG resist.
Resistance would be futile.
It would also be foolish, I submit.
But then, so far as I can see, the accountability exercise appears to be in such disarray anyway, that even if you took the advice being proffered here, it's quite doubtful you are going to achieve an acceptable proposal withing the self-imposed time frames.
But maybe I'm missing something.
On 26/11/15 03:47, Jordan Carter wrote:
hi Arun,
I think you are eliding two things in an unfortunate way - the GAC decision-making process, and the fact of the United States using its leverage in the transition discussion. The fact that NTIA has set out requirements for the transition to occur, and sharing its view about ST18's importance in validating one of those requirements, is not a commentary on decision-making in GAC.
Or am I missing something?
best Jordan
On 26 November 2015 at 16:43, Arun Mohan Sukumar <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org <mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org>> wrote:
Thank you for posting NTIA's comment on this, Suzanne.
It is for GAC colleagues in the CCWG to weigh in on Assistant Secretary Strickling's note. What concerns me is the NTIA's effort to intervene at this crucial stage in ST 18 discussions. Frankly, it defeats the spirit of compromise that the CCWG has been striving for on this issue. The NTIA suggests GAC should not be worried about a "single country veto", when it is exercising precisely that during this important exercise.
Apologies for what may sound like harsh words: the CCWG is well attuned to attempts by one powerful stakeholder to steer the debate, and has so far resisted/responded to them admirably. One hopes this will be no exception.
Best, Arun
-- Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com <http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/> +91-9871943272 <tel:%2B91-9871943272>
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk <mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>> wrote:
Hello Suzanne,____
__ __
Thank you for the NTIA’s timely comments and suggestions.____
Regards,____
Phil____
__ __
Phil Buckingham____
CEO,Dot Advice Limited____
Email:phil@dotadvice.co.uk <mailto:Email%3Aphil@dotadvice.co.uk>____
Skype: philip.buckingham14____
Mobile: 00 44 (0)7957643357 <tel:00%2044%20%280%297957643357>____
LinkedIn: Phil Buckingham____
__ __
__ __
__ __
__ __
*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 *Radell, Suzanne *Sent:* 25 November 2015 22:33 *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Cc:* ACCT-Staff *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18____
__ __
Hello everyone, Assistant Secretary Strickling has asked that I share this with the CCWG. Best regards, Suz____
__ __
*NTIA Statement on Stress Test 18____*
*November 25, 2015____*
*__ __*
NTIA has been closely following the discussions in the CCWG-Accountability, including the recently concluded small group on stress test 18. As has been the case throughout the work of the CCWG, we are impressed by the time and dedication so many of you are putting into these important discussions. We thank everyone for their efforts as the group works to finalize the proposal for publication on November 30. ____
__ __
NTIA has long believed that governments, like all stakeholders, have an important role to play within multistakeholder processes, including ICANN. Our position on that has not changed. As the CCWG finalizes its proposals for enhancing ICANN’s accountability, we feel we should reiterate our view, as we stated last July, that ICANN preserve and clarify the current practice of the Board in responding to advice it receives from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Specifically, ICANN should amend its Bylaws to clarify that the Board is required to enter into a formal consultation process with the GAC only where it receives GAC advice that is consensus advice based on the current definition within the GAC’s Operating Principles, that is, advice to which no GAC member has raised a formal objection. ____
__ __
We want to make clear that nothing about this proposal is intended to limit how the GAC determines what advice it submits to the Board. As the Bylaws make clear, the Board is obligated to duly take all GAC advice into account. However, it is not practicable for the Board to give GAC advice special consideration unless it is consensus advice as currently defined in the GAC Operating Principles. Anything less than consensus places the Board in the awkward, if not impossible, position of trying to choose between governments with conflicting opinions. NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments. Accordingly, every time the GAC provides consensus advice that it expects to trigger the special Bylaws consideration from the Board, it must be unambiguous and consistent with the current definition in the Operating Principles. Asking the Board to interpret any other threshold of support seems counter to the spirit of the CCWG’s efforts to empower the community in a clear and consistent manner. It also undermines the work done to implement the relevant recommendations of ATRT1 to fix what the community diagnosed as a dysfunctional Board-GAC relationship.____
__ __
We are aware that some countries are concerned that the current GAC Operating Principles could lead to a single-country veto of GAC advice to the detriment of other countries. We too share that concern. But the right place to deal with that issue is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. NTIA stands ready to participate in and contribute to such a discussion to resolve that concern at the appropriate time and place. ____
*__ __*
*__ __*
*__ __*
/Suzanne Murray Radell____/
/Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA____/
/sradell@ntia.doc.gov <mailto:sradell@ntia.doc.gov>____/
/202-482-3167____/
__ __
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz>
/A better world through a better Internet /
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus