Dear Andrew, all:
I see the situation a little bit differently.
It seems to me there is fairly broad agreement about these points:
- the GAC's advice is advice, and does not bind the ICANN Board
- the Bylaws set out how the Board should deal with GAC advice (attempt to come to an agreement - wrong language but you get the point)
- GAC today generates advice by consensus
- GAC today could change the way it generates advice
- the ICANN Bylaws should clearly state that the way the Board has to respond to GAC advice should only apply to consensus GAC advice
- the Board has the ability to not accept GAC advice even if it works through the "attempt to come to an agreement" process.
The critical difference we were discussing with our two options today is whether, in deciding not to accept GAC advice, the Board can
(point 5) make that decision by majority, or
(point 6) whether it has to achieve 2/3 support to make that decision.
We know that in practice the ICANN Board would generally made a decision like this *by consensus*, so there is very unlikely to be any practical difference whichever option we choose.
We also know that when the ICANN community was consulted about the idea of raising the threshold in the bylaws to 2/3, it was overwhelmingly rejected.
May I add two other points I think that we know, but which are probably controversial:
- the GNSO is unlikely to be able to approve the proposal with the 2/3 rule in place
- the GAC is unlikely to be able to come to a consensus to reject the proposal in the absence of the 2/3 rule.
I've explained why I think there is no practical difference between the two alternatives. Either way the Board will operate by consensus if at all possible on such weighty matters.
That said, I do recognise the importance of the symbolism here. So let me set out my view of this.
I think that governments form an integral part of the ICANN community. In a context of private sector led multistakeholder governance of the Internet DNS, they have to be at the table in an appropriate way.
That's why I support GAC as an advisory body only in dealing with ICANN's main business - its various policy development processes. It is also why I support it as a decisional participant in the exercise of the limited and narrow set of accountability powers our proposals deal with.
There is certainly no disrespect of sovereign states or the role of governments on my part when I say that the symbolism of 1/2 v 2/3 is simply not a battle worth fighting, especially when the rest of the ICANN community has so clearly expressed its view - and when it is so clear that it will make no practical difference whatsoever.
I'll close by appealing again to what we are trying to do here. We are trying to close out a proposal, sure - and that should lead to all the chartering organisations supporting it, or at least not opposing it. I see that happening most simply through the Point 6 proposal - simple majority rule for the Board.
But besides closing out this proposal, we are all trying to build a stable and constructive post-transition ICANN. Acknowledging and respecting our respective roles and responsibilities in that is important. In my view the CCWG will likely decide to proceed with Point 6. If that is right, it is a responsibility of all of us to portray that for what it is: a decision made on logical grounds, taking the feedback of the ICANN community into account. It is not an insult, or a symbolic "win" or "loss" for anyone.
I appeal to everyone who's got a deeply entrenched position on this argument either way to make sure that the discussion and decisions over the next few days are done with that spirit of coming to a sound conclusion, and that whichever way it goes, the good faith of all participants isn't in doubt. That's the best thing I can think of to help us get this work done in a durable and successful way.
cheers
Jordan