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> 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 +91-9871943272

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Finn Petersen <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" < 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Arun, I agree with comments of other colleagues, including those from Denmark. Also this sentence: "Given that Stress Test 18 constrains the GAC, it has got governments up in arms and threatens to stall the IANA transition altogether." does not reflect the present situation, as my colleague Jorge from Suitzerland has correctly pointed out. So I suggest you include in your blog also an objective analysis of the GAC communique from Dublin. Regards Olga Cavalli GAC Vicechair Argentina 2015-10-27 14:31 GMT-03:00 Arun Mohan Sukumar <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org>:

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 +91-9871943272

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Greg Shatan <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> 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 +91-9871943272

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Finn Petersen <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" < 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

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 +91-9871943272 On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Greg Shatan <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> 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 +91-9871943272

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Greg Shatan <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> 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 +91-9871943272

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Finn Petersen <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" < 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

On 10/27/15 11:30 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

Nevertheless, it's good that the team working on this stress test and GAC recognise that there is progress which is a good thing in the interest of the overall transition.

Seun, What "team" is this? What "work" have they done? The initial (mid-2014) text in the bizconst.org link was simplified by Steve on January 9th. To what are you referring? Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon

There Arun, as I understood discussions within the GAC these three points are not „options”, but form a “package”. And they represent a consensus view from the GAC. In fact they all complement each other and made our consensus possible. Regards Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Arun Mohan Sukumar Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. Oktober 2015 19:12 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: 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

Thanks, Finn... and I forgot to point out that there is a fourth point considered by the GAC and which is part of the package deal... Jorge p.s.: here you can find the complete text of the GAC Communique: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee Von: Finn Petersen [mailto:FinPet@erst.dk] Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. Oktober 2015 19:58 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: arun.sukumar@orfonline.org; gregshatanipc@gmail.com; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] On Stress Test 18 Jorge is correct. Best, Finn Sendt fra min iPad Den 27. okt. 2015 kl. 19.54 skrev "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>: There Arun, as I understood discussions within the GAC these three points are not "options", but form a "package". And they represent a consensus view from the GAC. In fact they all complement each other and made our consensus possible. Regards Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Arun Mohan Sukumar Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. Oktober 2015 19:12 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: 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 _______________________________________________ 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

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 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key From: Arun Mohan Sukumar [mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 2:12 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <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

On 27-Oct-15 17:13, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

Could any conceivable accountability mechanism ameliorate what you see as "a privilege given to no other advisory committee"?

I think so. I have long argued that all ACs should have the same privilege. And that the Board should be able to say no after ascertaining that the process had taken the issue into account and decided otherwise. And if the issue had not been taken into account, then they needed to send it back into the process to be properly and fully considered. As long as the Board adheres to its rule of _never_ making policy, not even when cloaked as implementation, the special privilege amounts to the courtesy of being heard and of having ones issues fully considered before acceptance or rejection of the recommendations coming from the Bottom Up Multistakeholder Process (BUMP). And if they don't that is where other escalation and enforcement comes in. Now with the GNSO PDP models of WGs being open to everyone and all the special early engagement work being done with the GAC, new issues not previously considered should become more and more rare. And if the GAC, or any other AC, abused the privilege with too much advice on issues that had already been dealt with or which had not been introduced into the process at the right time, then the evaluation of the advice would become easier and more negative. Being a hopeful sort, I expect the system would eventually reach a suitable balance where most issues were considered and no one got a second or a special bite at the apple. And reasonable appeals related to ICANN mission and core values, and its bylaws would be properly addressed. That is how the issue is ameliorated. Only some of this is about WS1 accountability, i.e. making sure the articles and bylaws are up to snuff, much of it is a conversation for another time and place (WS2). I only meant to question the whole special privilege thing. The problem with stress test 18 is that it is largely not an ICANN multistakeholder process issue, but is an intergovernmental issue. We are the intermediary. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

In looking back at the March email from Denmark's GAC representative, it points to a two-tier solution: The Board should "duly consider" any GAC advice, but only needs to give GAC advice produced by consensus the full treatment of "stat[ing] the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. 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." On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:

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 <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>

*Cc:* 'Accountability Cross Community' < 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> 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 <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 <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org>] *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2015 2:12 PM *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community < 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

+91-9871943272

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Greg Shatan <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> 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

+91-9871943272

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Greg Shatan <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> 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

+91-9871943272

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Finn Petersen <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" < 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

On 10/29/2015 08:10 AM, Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu wrote:

Sorry but don't think that this phrase will find much "consensus" within GAC:

I don't think it will find much traction among ccTLD managers either. Although ccNSO members are only bound by ICANN policy so long as it has been developed within the ccNSO (and then only whilst they remain a member), ccTLD managers are rightly protective of their local status and guard the principle of subsidiarity with vigour. This means, that even where a difference of opinion arises in the community over a matter which, at least on its face, apparently does not involve ccTLDs very much (such as Stress Test 18, on which I would suggest, most of us are studiedly neutral), whenever we read sentences line "so long as the Board gets to determine . . . . " hackles instinctively rise. A lot of more recent people in the ICANN community simply have no idea of the immense damage to trust that was done by ICANN and its then Boards in the period from approx 1999 to 2003. One commentator describes certain actions at the time (to wit, refusing IANA services as a method of compulsion) as 'quite literally extortion'. It would therefore, I suggest, be recommended to avoid suggesting that any one is prepared to accept that '. . . the Board gets to determine'. And this is why enforceable accountability of ICANN is a sine qua non and prerequisite of transition. Nigel Roberts (PS: I very much suspect that the public policy view taken by the various relevant public authorities on that matter just MAY probably be quite similar) On 10/29/2015 08:10 AM, Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu wrote:

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 ownoperating 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

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Thanks for making my point for me. :) Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key From: Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu [mailto:Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu] Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 4:10 AM To: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com; sdelbianco@netchoice.org Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] On Stress Test 18 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 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) <mailto:megan.richards@ec.europa.eu> 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> [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 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key 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 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key 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> 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

James, I had the same reaction, which I think is supported by the breadth of topics and types of advice contained in the last several GAC Communiques.... Greg On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:53 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:

Hi Megan -

Given that nearly every/any aspect of ICANN’s work could be framed as a “public policy” issue, I don’t find comfort in this limitation of the scope of the GAC.

Thanks—

J.

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of " Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu" <Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu> Date: Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 1:10 To: "paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>, "sdelbianco@netchoice.org" < sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>

Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] On Stress Test 18

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

[image: 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

*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 <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 <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 <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>] *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2015 1:23 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> *Cc:* 'Accountability Cross Community' < 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> 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 <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 <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org>] *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2015 2:12 PM *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community < 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

+91-9871943272

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Greg Shatan <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> 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

+91-9871943272

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Greg Shatan <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> 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

+91-9871943272

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Finn Petersen <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" < 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Hmm, like saying, ' who is icann to determine or judge what is consensus in GAC'. And GAC does not necessarily operate on consensus. I get it! R On Oct 29, 2015 4:10 AM, <Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu> wrote:

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

[image: 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

*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 <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 <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>] *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2015 1:23 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> *Cc:* 'Accountability Cross Community' < 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> 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 <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 <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org>] *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2015 2:12 PM *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community < 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

+91-9871943272

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Greg Shatan <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> 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

+91-9871943272

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Greg Shatan <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> 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

+91-9871943272

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Finn Petersen <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" < 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

"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. " Agree. J. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 10:22 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

to require ICANN to seek a mutually acceptable solution only when the GAC advice was supported by consensus of governments. I would be inclined to be in agreement with the above. RD On Oct 28, 2015 1:23 PM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:

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> 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 <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 <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org>] *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2015 2:12 PM *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community < 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

+91-9871943272

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Greg Shatan <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> 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

+91-9871943272

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Greg Shatan <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> 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

+91-9871943272

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Finn Petersen <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" < 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community