Fair enough Roelof. But if you agree it is a “must have” what is your definition of that consensus? Mine is the current one in the GAC OPs. Do you have a different one in mind?

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

Link to my PGP Key

From: Roelof Meijer [mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 1:01 PM
To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Stress Test 18: bylaw amendment suggestion

Dear Milton,

Thanks for your civilized and constructive response.

However, I get the impression that not considering the GAC as an enemy to you means that I now have GAC friends. I have friends everywhere (and enemies some might argue), but that is not relevant at all here.

So just to make sure: I consider governments to be important stakeholders. That’s it.

There’s another point were we seem to miscommunicate. Contrary to what you think, we do not disagree on "The consensus requirement is not a nice to have or a should have, it is a must have “ You might want to re-read my email. Open-minded.

Warm regards,

Roelof Meijer

From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu>
Date: donderdag 12 november 2015 23:48
To: Roelof Meijer <roelof.meijer@sidn.nl>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Stress Test 18: bylaw amendment suggestion

1. Do you think it is OK to ignore our position?

No I don’t and I don’t. But to me, the multistakeholdermodel does not mean that ALL stakeholders ALWAYS get ALL their wishes fulfilled. Would be nice, but does not work. Which the GAC realized, so they shifted. Nice to haves, should haves, must haves…

Roelof:

It’s odd that you are saying that to me. Have you said it to your GAC friends? Yes, indeed, no one gets all that they want. That applies to GAC as well as to any other stakeholder, doesn’t it?

I don’t think you are correct that the GAC has shifted its position. If it can redefine consensus to move away from true consensus (no objection) to some kind of a majority, it is still trying to retain the potential to offer by-law privileged “advice” without having the assent of all governments. This is just playing a word game, not changing its position.

The consensus requirement is not a nice to have or a should have, it is a must have - not only for us (NCSG) but for the transition as a whole. Any deviation from that will kill the transition in the U.S. Congress. There is no doubt about this.

NCSG has shown a willingness to adjust its position on AC participation in the community mechanism. The GAC must face reality and adjust its position too, or be left behind. If the GAC is left behind because of its inconsistency and intransigence, it will be no use whining that we are ignoring “a major stakeholder group” – they are ignoring the consensus. If they are going to be in the community mechanism as part of the sole designator, they must have real consensus behind their advice.