I agree with Phil. If GAC can’t even come to agreement that it wants and should have these powers, then we have no business giving them. Without approval from GAC on these powers, we can’t insist on changing it in this way. It isn’t appropriate to say that the lack of objection should be treated as acceptance. That is a logical flaw. Robin
On Jan 26, 2016, at 7:15 AM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
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> [mailto: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...> <image001.png> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...>
From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía [mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>] Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 8:15 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability
Dear all,
I am forwarding the GAC’s views on the draft recommendations of our third draft proposal.
Best regards,
León
Inicio del mensaje reenviado:
De: <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Asunto: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability Fecha: 25 de enero de 2016, 6:50:14 p.m. GMT-6 Para: <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Cc: <gac@icann.org <mailto:gac@icann.org>>
Dear Co-Chairs
Please find attached the GAC’s views on the draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG Accountability.
Best regards
Thomas
Thomas Schneider Chair ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ 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>