Dear Pedro I generally applaud your proposal as a valuable input from Brazil's perspective into the GAC's consideration of this issue as the committee follows up its consideration in Dublin of the key elements of the issues raised by Stress Test 18 as recorded in the communique. However, I agree with Finn's point that "*make every effort to*" strikes me as a variant on what the GAC agreed in Dublin and so I support his suggestion to you therefore that you might delete that element of your text proposal. The key point which I wish to underline in the context of this comment on your proposal is the UK's position that the GAC should make *irrevocably* clear to CCWG colleagues that the GAC will continue to fulfil its role in, and commitment to, the ICANN community through the provision of consensus-based advice to the Board. As I have made clear in previous statements, the UK would oppose any proposal to derogate from that specific commitment. Kind regards Mark Mark Carvell United Kingdom Representative on the Govenmental Advisory Committee of ICANN Mark Carvell Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062 On 11 November 2015 at 17:06, Finn Petersen <FinPet@erst.dk> wrote:
Dear Pedro,
Thank you very much for your efforts in operationalizing the GAC consensus input regarding ST 18 into bylaw text from Brazil's perspective. This is certainly not an easy task.
Here are a few comments from our side:
· In our view the GAC consensus input does not include a mention of *"will make every effort to ensure",* as such, and to be true to GAC’s consensus input, *"make every effort to"* should be deleted (marked with brackets in the text below).
· With regard to Bullit point 3 *"The value the Board attributes to receiving consensus advice",*we are of the view that the underlying purpose, will not be reflected adequately if the current definition of GAC consensus advice changes. The reason is that the Board will be put in an awkward position in situations where there is no agreement between governments.
Best,
Finn
Sendt fra min iPad
Den 9. nov. 2015 kl. 11.32 skrev Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva < pedro.ivo@itamaraty.gov.br>:
Dear CCWG colleagues,
As you are aware, in Dublin the GAC has provided a consensus input with regards to the bylaw amendments derived from ST18. The GAC input was the following:
"*The discussions on Stress Test 18 have helped the GAC to have a better understanding of the different views on the issue. In assessing the different rationales presented so far related to Stress Test 18, the GAC considered: *
-
*The need that each and every Advisory Committee ensures that the advice provided is clear and reflects the consensus view of the Committee; * -
*The need that each and every Advisory Committee should preserve its own autonomy in its definition of consensus; * -
*The value the Board attributes to receiving consensus advice; * -
*The recommendation of the BGRI WG, as reiterated by the ATRT2, to set the threshold *
*for the ICANN Board to reject GAC advice to a 2/3 majority voting, consistent with the threshold established for rejection of ccNSO and GNSO PDP recommendations.*
*In view of the above, having considered concerns expressed by various parties, the GAC agreed to further work on the issue of Stress Test 18, and to submit any further input to the CCWG taking into account the timelines of the CCWG. GAC Members will continue to work within the CCWG to finalise the proposal for enhancing ICANN accountability.*"
With the aim of addressing the input given by the GAC in its ICANN 54 communiqué and the original concerns expressed by the ST18 proponents, I present for your consideration the following alternative amendments (*underlined*) in ICANN bylaws.
*ARTICLE XI: ADVISORY COMMITTEES* *Section 1. GENERAL* *“The Board may create one or more Advisory Committees in addition to those set forth in this Article. Advisory Committee membership may consist of Directors only, Directors and non-directors, or non-directors only, and may also include non-voting or alternate members. Advisory Committees shall have no legal authority to act for ICANN, but shall report their findings and recommendations to the Board.* *Where the ICANN Board is obliged to pay due deference to advice from Advisory Committees and where that advice, if not followed, requires finding mutually agreed solutions for implementation of that advice, the Advisory Committee will (make every effort to) ensure that the advice provided is clear and reflects the consensus view of the committee. In this context, each Advisory Committee has the right to determine its particular definition of consensus.**” *
*ARTICLE XI: ADVISORY COMMITTEES* *Section 2. SPECIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEES* *Item 1.j* *“The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. **Any GAC Advice approved by a GAC consensus may only be rejected by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board.* *The Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.”*
Kind regards,
Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Divisão da Sociedade da Informação Ministério das Relações Exteriores T: +55 61 2030-6609
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community