Sorry but don't think that this phrase will find much "consensus" within GAC: "so long as the Board gets to determine what it deems consensus advice that activates the consultation agreement". So far as I recall it is not the Board that determines what is consensus in any other SO or AC – neither should it for GAC. Also GAC gives advice on public policy issues not on all and every aspect of ICANN activity. Hope that this helps to clarify Megan RICHARDS Principal Adviser [cid:image001.gif@01CF9F7C.EC1CDF70] European Commission Communications Networks, Content and Technology Directorate-General Office BU 25 6/24, rue de la Loi 200 B-1049 Brussels/Belgium +32-2-296-24-43(direct line) megan.richards@ec.europa.eu<mailto:megan.richards@ec.europa.eu> This message is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return of this e-mail. This communication does not constitute a formal commitment on behalf of the Commission neither can it be considered to state an official position of the European Commission. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 7:36 PM To: 'Steve DelBianco' Cc: 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] On Stress Test 18 Steve I have no interest in telling GAC how to operate. They can use a Oujia board for all I care (ok .. that’s a bit extreme). My concern is with the action forcing mechanism that they have to compel Board consideration. That is why, to be clear, I completely support the idea of amending the bylaws to require the mutual agreement consultation process only when the GAC’s advice is by consensus --- so long as the Board gets to determine what it deems consensus advice that activates the consultation agreement. If you read my note as anything other than support for the idea, I apologize for my rhetorical flourish. 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...> From: Steve DelBianco [mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 1:23 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Cc: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] On Stress Test 18 Paul — you suggest CCWG should somehow prevent GAC from changing its own operating principles<https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Operating+Principles>, regarding how they make decisions. But an approach that interferes with GAC (or any AC/SO) prerogative to make its own rules…seems to me a blunt instrument that will meet fierce resistance. Far better, don’t you think, to amend ICANN bylaws regarding how ICANN is obliged to respond to GAC advice. From the start, that’s all we have ever proposed in CCWG: to require ICANN to seek a mutually acceptable solution only when the GAC advice was supported by consensus of governments. That approach avoids embroiling ICANN’s board in resolving differences among sovereign governments in the GAC. It provides the incentive for GAC to reach consensus when it wants its advice to be taken most seriously. And it avoids telling an AC/SO how it must make decisions. —Steve From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 4:35 PM To: 'Arun Mohan Sukumar', 'Greg Shatan' Cc: 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] On Stress Test 18 Arun Don’t let them change your mind. Though the GAC members may assert othewrisie, your summary is accurate. The GAC has reached consensus that it should retain the unilateral ability to change its own definition of consensus while at the same time agreeing that the Board should continue to give the GAC’s consensus advice the same value it currently attributes to consensus advice. This is not “accepting” Stress Test 18 it is deliberately avoiding the hard choice. The issue remains – will GAC advice continue to require Board negotiation, a privilege given to no other advisory committee? If it will then will the GAC agree that it cannot unilaterally change the definition of consensus? I see nothing in the communique that resolves that – nor any recognition by the GAC that all of the other commenters in the public comment process have disagreed with its position and supported the Bylaw modification that answers ST18. There is only a recognition of the problem and a continued promse to “work within CCWG.” All that is well and good – but it doesn’t change the issue which (save for your inadvertent misattribution of Denmark’s views) you have correctly summarized. 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...> From: Arun Mohan Sukumar [mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 2:12 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] On Stress Test 18 Hi Olga, This is the operative part of the Dublin communique on ST18. The GAC considered: 1. The need that each and every Advisory Committee ensures that the advice provided is clear and reflects the consensus view of the Committee; 2. The need that each and every Advisory Committee should preserve its own autonomy in its definition of consensus; 3. The value the Board attributes to receiving consensus advice; .... the GAC agreed to further work on the issue of Stress Test 18... These 3 options considered by the GAC are as different as chalk and cheese. What might an objective analysis of them be? If, as Greg says, the issue is settled, why didn't the GAC simply accept the stress test? I have no fight in this either, so I'm very much looking to hear a more informed take on the Communique. Best, Arun -- Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com<http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/> +91-9871943272 On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Arun, This is not my fight, but I don't understand your position. Your reliance on the 3 March 2015 email is incorrect on its face -- it does not say that Denmark opposed Stress Test 18. In any event you have the email intervention from Finn Petersen (signed "GAC - Dk") asking you tor correct it. I don't think you need any further requests from Denmark to correct your article. It would be the responsible thing to do. If this remains uncorrected, in combination with the passage that Olga Cavalli quoted, it gives the appearance that your article is a stick stirring the ashes, hoping to rekindle a fire that has gone out, rather than a serious piece of reporting or analysis. I hope that you did not intend to be a pyromaniac -- it would be a waste of your time and skills, and counterproductive in the larger scheme of things. Greg On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Arun Mohan Sukumar <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org<mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org>> wrote: Thanks Greg - I would need to link to an e-mail intervention from DK or GAC meeting transcripts (when Dublin ones are out) to make this correction. Saying this post the article's publication is not quite the same. Best, -- Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com<http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/> +91-9871943272<tel:%2B91-9871943272> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Arun, I just read the email you referred to. It does not support the proposition that Stress Test 18 is unacceptable to Denmark, or even that Denmark has a position on Stress Test 18. It is a fairly nuanced and non-dispositive email, contributing to the overall discourse at the time it was written. Furthermore, it was written 3 March 2015, which in "CCWG time" is several millennia ago -- a further reason not to rely on it as a statement of "position" in late October. I suggest that you do not need to wait for further instructions from Denmark in order to correct your piece, especially since Denmark has already told you in no uncertain terms that "your statement concerning Denmark is wrong!!!!" I look forward to reading the revised version of your article. Best regards, Greg Shatan On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Arun Mohan Sukumar <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org<mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org>> wrote: Hi Finn, this is what I went by: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/2015-March/000071.html If the Danish position has changed, happy to correct. Best, -- Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com<http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/> +91-9871943272<tel:%2B91-9871943272> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Finn Petersen <FinPet@erst.dk<mailto:FinPet@erst.dk>> wrote: Dear Arun, Thoughts - here is one! You write "Several countries, notably Brazil, Spain, Denmark and Argentina, see the proposed modification as unacceptable." Why did you include Denmark in the group of countries that oppose ST18 - your statement concerning Denmark is wrong!!!! Please correct this. Best, Finn, GAC - Dk Sendt fra min iPad Den 27. okt. 2015 kl. 17.42 skrev "arun.sukumar@orfonline.org<mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org>" <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org<mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org>>: CCWGers, plugging here a post I wrote on discussions around Stress Test 18. http://blogs.cfr.org/cyber/2015/10/27/governments-v-icann-the-last-battle-be... Thoughts welcome! Best, Arun Sent from my iPad Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/ Ph: +91-9871943272 _______________________________________________ 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
