Does the proposed change to the GAC Bylaw create a new "mandatory voting requirement" for the ICANN Board?
All, In reviewing the Third Draft Proposal, concerns have been raised within my constituency that the proposed Bylaw does more than replace an existing "majority" threshold with a new "2/3" threshold. The concern is that the proposed Bylaw introduces a "mandatory vote" by the Board in order to reject GAC Advice where the Bylaws do not currently require a Board vote. Further, there appears to be a concern that, if the Board does not take a vote and affirmatively reject a piece of GAC advice, then that GAC advice becomes binding on ICANN. These concerns stem from a reading of the draft Bylaw (new language in red): The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds of the Board, and tThe 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. The current language of the Bylaw makes no reference to voting, only to the far more ambiguous "determines to take an action." As such, adding a reference to a vote can be seen to add a new element (aside from the introduction of a 2/3 threshold): the element of a bylaws-mandated vote. Similarly, the statement that GAC Advice can only be rejected by a vote of the Board can be read to state that if no such vote is taken (or if such vote is taken and fails) that the GAC Advice is then something ICANN is bound to follow. I don't think either of these things were intended by the CCWG. Whether they are misreadings of our draft language or unintended consequences of the drafting, this concern is troubling. If it is the intent of some of those drafting this language to force a vote where none is currently required, then that is even more troubling. I would appreciate some clarification on these matters that I can bring back to my group. I would also appreciate the CCWG considering a change in language to remove this ambiguity which is currently causing great consternation in my group. I suggest the language below. This m ore closely track s the language of the existing bylaw and avoid the use of the term "vote," with its potential unintended consequences: The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. If the Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, such determination must be supported by two-thirds of the Board, and 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. I would appreciate your thoughts on this point and the revised language. Thank you. Greg
Interesting you say this now, even though it was raised sometime last month without attention: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-November/0... Maybe now that you've written a full page about it, will warrant attention. Guess it's a saying of "the more you look at one thing, the less you see other stuff around". The ccwg focused on consensus and I hope they will get that for all I care. Good luck with trying to "eat the cake and have it" at the same time, even though there was IMO no significant reason to want to eat the cake in the first place (as it's half baked). Regards On Dec 16, 2015 9:10 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
In reviewing the Third Draft Proposal, concerns have been raised within my constituency that the proposed Bylaw does more than replace an existing "majority" threshold with a new "2/3" threshold. The concern is that the proposed Bylaw introduces a "mandatory vote" by the Board in order to reject GAC Advice where the Bylaws do not currently require a Board vote. Further, there appears to be a concern that, if the Board does not take a vote and affirmatively reject a piece of GAC advice, then that GAC advice becomes binding on ICANN.
These concerns stem from a reading of the draft Bylaw (new language in red):
The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds of the Board, and tThe 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.
The current language of the Bylaw makes no reference to voting, only to the far more ambiguous "determines to take an action." As such, adding a reference to a vote can be seen to add a new element (aside from the introduction of a 2/3 threshold): the element of a bylaws-mandated vote. Similarly, the statement that GAC Advice can only be rejected by a vote of the Board can be read to state that if no such vote is taken (or if such vote is taken and fails) that the GAC Advice is then something ICANN is bound to follow.
I don't think either of these things were intended by the CCWG. Whether they are misreadings of our draft language or unintended consequences of the drafting, this concern is troubling. If it is the intent of some of those drafting this language to force a vote where none is currently required, then that is even more troubling.
I would appreciate some clarification on these matters that I can bring back to my group.
I would also appreciate the CCWG considering a change in language to remove this ambiguity which is currently causing great consternation in my group.
I suggest the language below. This m ore closely track s the language of the existing bylaw and avoid the use of the term "vote," with its potential unintended consequences:
The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. If the Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, such determination must be supported by two-thirds of the Board, and 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.
I would appreciate your thoughts on this point and the revised language. Thank you.
Greg
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Grec, You did not reply to my question? Whose interests you are defending? I think ,we all should to the extent practiceable be neutral in reading and or examining a given text from Professional view points. Having said that , we do not need to change that part . There are other major problems in ST18. HOWEVER, THE LANGUAGE USED CURRENTLY IS CONCEPTUAL AND NOT THE EXACT bylaws legal text Regards Kavouss 2015-12-16 9:48 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Interesting you say this now, even though it was raised sometime last month without attention:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-November/0...
Maybe now that you've written a full page about it, will warrant attention. Guess it's a saying of "the more you look at one thing, the less you see other stuff around". The ccwg focused on consensus and I hope they will get that for all I care. Good luck with trying to "eat the cake and have it" at the same time, even though there was IMO no significant reason to want to eat the cake in the first place (as it's half baked).
Regards On Dec 16, 2015 9:10 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
In reviewing the Third Draft Proposal, concerns have been raised within my constituency that the proposed Bylaw does more than replace an existing "majority" threshold with a new "2/3" threshold. The concern is that the proposed Bylaw introduces a "mandatory vote" by the Board in order to reject GAC Advice where the Bylaws do not currently require a Board vote. Further, there appears to be a concern that, if the Board does not take a vote and affirmatively reject a piece of GAC advice, then that GAC advice becomes binding on ICANN.
These concerns stem from a reading of the draft Bylaw (new language in red):
The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds of the Board, and tThe 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.
The current language of the Bylaw makes no reference to voting, only to the far more ambiguous "determines to take an action." As such, adding a reference to a vote can be seen to add a new element (aside from the introduction of a 2/3 threshold): the element of a bylaws-mandated vote. Similarly, the statement that GAC Advice can only be rejected by a vote of the Board can be read to state that if no such vote is taken (or if such vote is taken and fails) that the GAC Advice is then something ICANN is bound to follow.
I don't think either of these things were intended by the CCWG. Whether they are misreadings of our draft language or unintended consequences of the drafting, this concern is troubling. If it is the intent of some of those drafting this language to force a vote where none is currently required, then that is even more troubling.
I would appreciate some clarification on these matters that I can bring back to my group.
I would also appreciate the CCWG considering a change in language to remove this ambiguity which is currently causing great consternation in my group.
I suggest the language below. This m ore closely track s the language of the existing bylaw and avoid the use of the term "vote," with its potential unintended consequences:
The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. If the Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, such determination must be supported by two-thirds of the Board, and 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.
I would appreciate your thoughts on this point and the revised language. Thank you.
Greg
_______________________________________________ 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
Kavouss, Your request came after I went to sleep. I responded as soon as I saw it after I woke up. I don't think I'm defending anybody's interests in regard to this particular question. I'm just trying to clarify what the Proposal is on a conceptual level. If the language does not clearly express the CCWG's intent, it needs to be changed. If it is the intent of the CCWG to institute a mandatory vote, that needs to be clarified as well. This is not mentioned anywhere in the detailed explanation of the proposal, so if that is the intent it is not properly expressed. Either way, something needs to be changed. Do you have a response to the substance of my question? Is this a new mandatory vote or just bad drafting? Greg On Wednesday, December 16, 2015, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com');>> wrote:
Grec, You did not reply to my question? Whose interests you are defending? I think ,we all should to the extent practiceable be neutral in reading and or examining a given text from Professional view points. Having said that , we do not need to change that part . There are other major problems in ST18. HOWEVER, THE LANGUAGE USED CURRENTLY IS CONCEPTUAL AND NOT THE EXACT bylaws legal text Regards Kavouss
2015-12-16 9:48 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Interesting you say this now, even though it was raised sometime last month without attention:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-November/0...
Maybe now that you've written a full page about it, will warrant attention. Guess it's a saying of "the more you look at one thing, the less you see other stuff around". The ccwg focused on consensus and I hope they will get that for all I care. Good luck with trying to "eat the cake and have it" at the same time, even though there was IMO no significant reason to want to eat the cake in the first place (as it's half baked).
Regards On Dec 16, 2015 9:10 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
In reviewing the Third Draft Proposal, concerns have been raised within my constituency that the proposed Bylaw does more than replace an existing "majority" threshold with a new "2/3" threshold. The concern is that the proposed Bylaw introduces a "mandatory vote" by the Board in order to reject GAC Advice where the Bylaws do not currently require a Board vote. Further, there appears to be a concern that, if the Board does not take a vote and affirmatively reject a piece of GAC advice, then that GAC advice becomes binding on ICANN.
These concerns stem from a reading of the draft Bylaw (new language in red):
The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds of the Board, and tThe 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.
The current language of the Bylaw makes no reference to voting, only to the far more ambiguous "determines to take an action." As such, adding a reference to a vote can be seen to add a new element (aside from the introduction of a 2/3 threshold): the element of a bylaws-mandated vote. Similarly, the statement that GAC Advice can only be rejected by a vote of the Board can be read to state that if no such vote is taken (or if such vote is taken and fails) that the GAC Advice is then something ICANN is bound to follow.
I don't think either of these things were intended by the CCWG. Whether they are misreadings of our draft language or unintended consequences of the drafting, this concern is troubling. If it is the intent of some of those drafting this language to force a vote where none is currently required, then that is even more troubling.
I would appreciate some clarification on these matters that I can bring back to my group.
I would also appreciate the CCWG considering a change in language to remove this ambiguity which is currently causing great consternation in my group.
I suggest the language below. This m ore closely track s the language of the existing bylaw and avoid the use of the term "vote," with its potential unintended consequences:
The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. If the Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, such determination must be supported by two-thirds of the Board, and 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.
I would appreciate your thoughts on this point and the revised language. Thank you.
Greg
_______________________________________________ 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
Good Afternoon his Excellency Tks for information. I have replied to your conerns before" we do not need to change that part . There are other major problems in ST18. HOWEVER, THE LANGUAGE USED CURRENTLY IS CONCEPTUAL AND NOT THE EXACT bylaws legal text" Regards Kavouss 2015-12-16 15:31 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Kavouss,
Your request came after I went to sleep. I responded as soon as I saw it after I woke up.
I don't think I'm defending anybody's interests in regard to this particular question. I'm just trying to clarify what the Proposal is on a conceptual level.
If the language does not clearly express the CCWG's intent, it needs to be changed. If it is the intent of the CCWG to institute a mandatory vote, that needs to be clarified as well. This is not mentioned anywhere in the detailed explanation of the proposal, so if that is the intent it is not properly expressed.
Either way, something needs to be changed.
Do you have a response to the substance of my question? Is this a new mandatory vote or just bad drafting?
Greg
On Wednesday, December 16, 2015, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Grec, You did not reply to my question? Whose interests you are defending? I think ,we all should to the extent practiceable be neutral in reading and or examining a given text from Professional view points. Having said that , we do not need to change that part . There are other major problems in ST18. HOWEVER, THE LANGUAGE USED CURRENTLY IS CONCEPTUAL AND NOT THE EXACT bylaws legal text Regards Kavouss
2015-12-16 9:48 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Interesting you say this now, even though it was raised sometime last month without attention:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-November/0...
Maybe now that you've written a full page about it, will warrant attention. Guess it's a saying of "the more you look at one thing, the less you see other stuff around". The ccwg focused on consensus and I hope they will get that for all I care. Good luck with trying to "eat the cake and have it" at the same time, even though there was IMO no significant reason to want to eat the cake in the first place (as it's half baked).
Regards On Dec 16, 2015 9:10 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
In reviewing the Third Draft Proposal, concerns have been raised within my constituency that the proposed Bylaw does more than replace an existing "majority" threshold with a new "2/3" threshold. The concern is that the proposed Bylaw introduces a "mandatory vote" by the Board in order to reject GAC Advice where the Bylaws do not currently require a Board vote. Further, there appears to be a concern that, if the Board does not take a vote and affirmatively reject a piece of GAC advice, then that GAC advice becomes binding on ICANN.
These concerns stem from a reading of the draft Bylaw (new language in red):
The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds of the Board, and tThe 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.
The current language of the Bylaw makes no reference to voting, only to the far more ambiguous "determines to take an action." As such, adding a reference to a vote can be seen to add a new element (aside from the introduction of a 2/3 threshold): the element of a bylaws-mandated vote. Similarly, the statement that GAC Advice can only be rejected by a vote of the Board can be read to state that if no such vote is taken (or if such vote is taken and fails) that the GAC Advice is then something ICANN is bound to follow.
I don't think either of these things were intended by the CCWG. Whether they are misreadings of our draft language or unintended consequences of the drafting, this concern is troubling. If it is the intent of some of those drafting this language to force a vote where none is currently required, then that is even more troubling.
I would appreciate some clarification on these matters that I can bring back to my group.
I would also appreciate the CCWG considering a change in language to remove this ambiguity which is currently causing great consternation in my group.
I suggest the language below. This m ore closely track s the language of the existing bylaw and avoid the use of the term "vote," with its potential unintended consequences:
The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. If the Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, such determination must be supported by two-thirds of the Board, and 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.
I would appreciate your thoughts on this point and the revised language. Thank you.
Greg
_______________________________________________ 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
Thank you for your email, Kavouss. I initially thought it was a non-answer, but then I realized that it was a diplomatic answer. I don't spend much time in diplomatic circles, so I initially didn't get it. I believe that what I am reading (and translating from diplomatic terms to New Yorkese (a more "in-your-face" dialect)) is this: "We do not need to change that part of the proposed Bylaw because it does introduce a mandatory voting requirement where none existed before, and that is intentional (and not a drafting error)." I suppose any further discussion, or a frank statement of the intent and effect, would draw this issue out of the shadows, and thus jeopardize its inclusion in the final Proposal. Unfortunately, I think we need to draw this issue out of the shadows. Frankly, within my group, I had been arguing that this was a mere drafting error, that no new voting requirement was being introduced, and that all that was happening here was a change from majority to 2/3 but that the Board's process was otherwise unchanged. I thought those reading more into were catastrophizing. Now I am not so sure. The GNSO Council will be discussing this in 24 hours. IPC is discussing it in less than 2 hours. It's important to clarify what our proposal says. I expect that IPC's reaction, for one, is going to be significantly more negative if this Proposal intends to change the Board's process and not just the decisional threshold (which is raising enough trouble on its own, thank you very much). Indeed, I think it undermines the credibility of the entire proposal if there are significant changes hidden in the language and not explained even in the most detailed explanation in the Annexes. Bad drafting is something we can solve in implementation. "Bad concepts" and "Trojan horses" are not. We need to solve them now. I hope to have something to report to my constituency soon. For better or worse. Greg Shatan [President, IPC, but writing in my personal capacity] On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Good Afternoon his Excellency Tks for information. I have replied to your conerns before" we do not need to change that part . There are other major problems in ST18. HOWEVER, THE LANGUAGE USED CURRENTLY IS CONCEPTUAL AND NOT THE EXACT bylaws legal text" Regards Kavouss
2015-12-16 15:31 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Kavouss,
Your request came after I went to sleep. I responded as soon as I saw it after I woke up.
I don't think I'm defending anybody's interests in regard to this particular question. I'm just trying to clarify what the Proposal is on a conceptual level.
If the language does not clearly express the CCWG's intent, it needs to be changed. If it is the intent of the CCWG to institute a mandatory vote, that needs to be clarified as well. This is not mentioned anywhere in the detailed explanation of the proposal, so if that is the intent it is not properly expressed.
Either way, something needs to be changed.
Do you have a response to the substance of my question? Is this a new mandatory vote or just bad drafting?
Greg
On Wednesday, December 16, 2015, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Grec, You did not reply to my question? Whose interests you are defending? I think ,we all should to the extent practiceable be neutral in reading and or examining a given text from Professional view points. Having said that , we do not need to change that part . There are other major problems in ST18. HOWEVER, THE LANGUAGE USED CURRENTLY IS CONCEPTUAL AND NOT THE EXACT bylaws legal text Regards Kavouss
2015-12-16 9:48 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Interesting you say this now, even though it was raised sometime last month without attention:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-November/0...
Maybe now that you've written a full page about it, will warrant attention. Guess it's a saying of "the more you look at one thing, the less you see other stuff around". The ccwg focused on consensus and I hope they will get that for all I care. Good luck with trying to "eat the cake and have it" at the same time, even though there was IMO no significant reason to want to eat the cake in the first place (as it's half baked).
Regards On Dec 16, 2015 9:10 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
In reviewing the Third Draft Proposal, concerns have been raised within my constituency that the proposed Bylaw does more than replace an existing "majority" threshold with a new "2/3" threshold. The concern is that the proposed Bylaw introduces a "mandatory vote" by the Board in order to reject GAC Advice where the Bylaws do not currently require a Board vote. Further, there appears to be a concern that, if the Board does not take a vote and affirmatively reject a piece of GAC advice, then that GAC advice becomes binding on ICANN.
These concerns stem from a reading of the draft Bylaw (new language in red):
The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds of the Board, and tThe 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.
The current language of the Bylaw makes no reference to voting, only to the far more ambiguous "determines to take an action." As such, adding a reference to a vote can be seen to add a new element (aside from the introduction of a 2/3 threshold): the element of a bylaws-mandated vote. Similarly, the statement that GAC Advice can only be rejected by a vote of the Board can be read to state that if no such vote is taken (or if such vote is taken and fails) that the GAC Advice is then something ICANN is bound to follow.
I don't think either of these things were intended by the CCWG. Whether they are misreadings of our draft language or unintended consequences of the drafting, this concern is troubling. If it is the intent of some of those drafting this language to force a vote where none is currently required, then that is even more troubling.
I would appreciate some clarification on these matters that I can bring back to my group.
I would also appreciate the CCWG considering a change in language to remove this ambiguity which is currently causing great consternation in my group.
I suggest the language below. This m ore closely track s the language of the existing bylaw and avoid the use of the term "vote," with its potential unintended consequences:
The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. If the Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, such determination must be supported by two-thirds of the Board, and 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.
I would appreciate your thoughts on this point and the revised language. Thank you.
Greg
_______________________________________________ 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
One other thing -- there's no need to call me "his Excellency." I'll follow U.S. protocol (to the extent I know it) and accept "Mr. President." For some reason, IPC has always had a "President" while all other ICANN groups have "Chairs." The reasons for this may be lost in the mists of time, though I think it's because the initial governing documents of the IPC were based on non-profit corporation bylaws. When I am not carrying out my official duties (e.g., when we're drinking a beer and you can see my tattoos, to paraphrase Justin Trudeau), you can call me "Greg" (or even "Grec," if you prefer). Greg On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for your email, Kavouss. I initially thought it was a non-answer, but then I realized that it was a diplomatic answer. I don't spend much time in diplomatic circles, so I initially didn't get it.
I believe that what I am reading (and translating from diplomatic terms to New Yorkese (a more "in-your-face" dialect)) is this: "We do not need to change that part of the proposed Bylaw because it does introduce a mandatory voting requirement where none existed before, and that is intentional (and not a drafting error)."
I suppose any further discussion, or a frank statement of the intent and effect, would draw this issue out of the shadows, and thus jeopardize its inclusion in the final Proposal. Unfortunately, I think we need to draw this issue out of the shadows.
Frankly, within my group, I had been arguing that this was a mere drafting error, that no new voting requirement was being introduced, and that all that was happening here was a change from majority to 2/3 but that the Board's process was otherwise unchanged. I thought those reading more into were catastrophizing. Now I am not so sure.
The GNSO Council will be discussing this in 24 hours. IPC is discussing it in less than 2 hours. It's important to clarify what our proposal says. I expect that IPC's reaction, for one, is going to be significantly more negative if this Proposal intends to change the Board's process and not just the decisional threshold (which is raising enough trouble on its own, thank you very much).
Indeed, I think it undermines the credibility of the entire proposal if there are significant changes hidden in the language and not explained even in the most detailed explanation in the Annexes. Bad drafting is something we can solve in implementation. "Bad concepts" and "Trojan horses" are not. We need to solve them now.
I hope to have something to report to my constituency soon. For better or worse.
Greg Shatan [President, IPC, but writing in my personal capacity]
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Good Afternoon his Excellency Tks for information. I have replied to your conerns before" we do not need to change that part . There are other major problems in ST18. HOWEVER, THE LANGUAGE USED CURRENTLY IS CONCEPTUAL AND NOT THE EXACT bylaws legal text" Regards Kavouss
2015-12-16 15:31 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Kavouss,
Your request came after I went to sleep. I responded as soon as I saw it after I woke up.
I don't think I'm defending anybody's interests in regard to this particular question. I'm just trying to clarify what the Proposal is on a conceptual level.
If the language does not clearly express the CCWG's intent, it needs to be changed. If it is the intent of the CCWG to institute a mandatory vote, that needs to be clarified as well. This is not mentioned anywhere in the detailed explanation of the proposal, so if that is the intent it is not properly expressed.
Either way, something needs to be changed.
Do you have a response to the substance of my question? Is this a new mandatory vote or just bad drafting?
Greg
On Wednesday, December 16, 2015, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Grec, You did not reply to my question? Whose interests you are defending? I think ,we all should to the extent practiceable be neutral in reading and or examining a given text from Professional view points. Having said that , we do not need to change that part . There are other major problems in ST18. HOWEVER, THE LANGUAGE USED CURRENTLY IS CONCEPTUAL AND NOT THE EXACT bylaws legal text Regards Kavouss
2015-12-16 9:48 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Interesting you say this now, even though it was raised sometime last month without attention:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-November/0...
Maybe now that you've written a full page about it, will warrant attention. Guess it's a saying of "the more you look at one thing, the less you see other stuff around". The ccwg focused on consensus and I hope they will get that for all I care. Good luck with trying to "eat the cake and have it" at the same time, even though there was IMO no significant reason to want to eat the cake in the first place (as it's half baked).
Regards On Dec 16, 2015 9:10 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
In reviewing the Third Draft Proposal, concerns have been raised within my constituency that the proposed Bylaw does more than replace an existing "majority" threshold with a new "2/3" threshold. The concern is that the proposed Bylaw introduces a "mandatory vote" by the Board in order to reject GAC Advice where the Bylaws do not currently require a Board vote. Further, there appears to be a concern that, if the Board does not take a vote and affirmatively reject a piece of GAC advice, then that GAC advice becomes binding on ICANN.
These concerns stem from a reading of the draft Bylaw (new language in red):
The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds of the Board, and tThe 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.
The current language of the Bylaw makes no reference to voting, only to the far more ambiguous "determines to take an action." As such, adding a reference to a vote can be seen to add a new element (aside from the introduction of a 2/3 threshold): the element of a bylaws-mandated vote. Similarly, the statement that GAC Advice can only be rejected by a vote of the Board can be read to state that if no such vote is taken (or if such vote is taken and fails) that the GAC Advice is then something ICANN is bound to follow.
I don't think either of these things were intended by the CCWG. Whether they are misreadings of our draft language or unintended consequences of the drafting, this concern is troubling. If it is the intent of some of those drafting this language to force a vote where none is currently required, then that is even more troubling.
I would appreciate some clarification on these matters that I can bring back to my group.
I would also appreciate the CCWG considering a change in language to remove this ambiguity which is currently causing great consternation in my group.
I suggest the language below. This m ore closely track s the language of the existing bylaw and avoid the use of the term "vote," with its potential unintended consequences:
The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. If the Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, such determination must be supported by two-thirds of the Board, and 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.
I would appreciate your thoughts on this point and the revised language. Thank you.
Greg
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Grec, Do not take it serious If I referred to your title. This was and will the only time thatI referred or refer to that title. Be assured that I fully respect your competence, qualification and legal knowledge Regards Kavouss 2015-12-16 18:27 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
One other thing -- there's no need to call me "his Excellency." I'll follow U.S. protocol (to the extent I know it) and accept "Mr. President." For some reason, IPC has always had a "President" while all other ICANN groups have "Chairs." The reasons for this may be lost in the mists of time, though I think it's because the initial governing documents of the IPC were based on non-profit corporation bylaws.
When I am not carrying out my official duties (e.g., when we're drinking a beer and you can see my tattoos, to paraphrase Justin Trudeau), you can call me "Greg" (or even "Grec," if you prefer).
Greg
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for your email, Kavouss. I initially thought it was a non-answer, but then I realized that it was a diplomatic answer. I don't spend much time in diplomatic circles, so I initially didn't get it.
I believe that what I am reading (and translating from diplomatic terms to New Yorkese (a more "in-your-face" dialect)) is this: "We do not need to change that part of the proposed Bylaw because it does introduce a mandatory voting requirement where none existed before, and that is intentional (and not a drafting error)."
I suppose any further discussion, or a frank statement of the intent and effect, would draw this issue out of the shadows, and thus jeopardize its inclusion in the final Proposal. Unfortunately, I think we need to draw this issue out of the shadows.
Frankly, within my group, I had been arguing that this was a mere drafting error, that no new voting requirement was being introduced, and that all that was happening here was a change from majority to 2/3 but that the Board's process was otherwise unchanged. I thought those reading more into were catastrophizing. Now I am not so sure.
The GNSO Council will be discussing this in 24 hours. IPC is discussing it in less than 2 hours. It's important to clarify what our proposal says. I expect that IPC's reaction, for one, is going to be significantly more negative if this Proposal intends to change the Board's process and not just the decisional threshold (which is raising enough trouble on its own, thank you very much).
Indeed, I think it undermines the credibility of the entire proposal if there are significant changes hidden in the language and not explained even in the most detailed explanation in the Annexes. Bad drafting is something we can solve in implementation. "Bad concepts" and "Trojan horses" are not. We need to solve them now.
I hope to have something to report to my constituency soon. For better or worse.
Greg Shatan [President, IPC, but writing in my personal capacity]
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Good Afternoon his Excellency Tks for information. I have replied to your conerns before" we do not need to change that part . There are other major problems in ST18. HOWEVER, THE LANGUAGE USED CURRENTLY IS CONCEPTUAL AND NOT THE EXACT bylaws legal text" Regards Kavouss
2015-12-16 15:31 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Kavouss,
Your request came after I went to sleep. I responded as soon as I saw it after I woke up.
I don't think I'm defending anybody's interests in regard to this particular question. I'm just trying to clarify what the Proposal is on a conceptual level.
If the language does not clearly express the CCWG's intent, it needs to be changed. If it is the intent of the CCWG to institute a mandatory vote, that needs to be clarified as well. This is not mentioned anywhere in the detailed explanation of the proposal, so if that is the intent it is not properly expressed.
Either way, something needs to be changed.
Do you have a response to the substance of my question? Is this a new mandatory vote or just bad drafting?
Greg
On Wednesday, December 16, 2015, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Grec, You did not reply to my question? Whose interests you are defending? I think ,we all should to the extent practiceable be neutral in reading and or examining a given text from Professional view points. Having said that , we do not need to change that part . There are other major problems in ST18. HOWEVER, THE LANGUAGE USED CURRENTLY IS CONCEPTUAL AND NOT THE EXACT bylaws legal text Regards Kavouss
2015-12-16 9:48 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Interesting you say this now, even though it was raised sometime last month without attention:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-November/0...
Maybe now that you've written a full page about it, will warrant attention. Guess it's a saying of "the more you look at one thing, the less you see other stuff around". The ccwg focused on consensus and I hope they will get that for all I care. Good luck with trying to "eat the cake and have it" at the same time, even though there was IMO no significant reason to want to eat the cake in the first place (as it's half baked).
Regards On Dec 16, 2015 9:10 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
> All, > > In reviewing the Third Draft Proposal, concerns have been raised > within my constituency that the proposed Bylaw does more than replace an > existing "majority" threshold with a new "2/3" threshold. The concern is > that the proposed Bylaw introduces a "mandatory vote" by the Board in order > to reject GAC Advice where the Bylaws do not currently require a Board > vote. Further, there appears to be a concern that, if the Board does not > take a vote and affirmatively reject a piece of GAC advice, then that GAC > advice becomes binding on ICANN. > > These concerns stem from a reading of the draft Bylaw (new language > in red): > > > The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy > matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and > adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take > an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory > Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons > why it decided not to follow that advice. Any Governmental Advisory > Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory Committee > consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general > agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a > vote of two-thirds of the Board, and tThe 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. > > > The current language of the Bylaw makes no reference to voting, > only to the far more ambiguous "determines to take an action." As such, > adding a reference to a vote can be seen to add a new element (aside from > the introduction of a 2/3 threshold): the element of a bylaws-mandated > vote. Similarly, the statement that GAC Advice can only be rejected by a > vote of the Board can be read to state that if no such vote is taken (or if > such vote is taken and fails) that the GAC Advice is then something ICANN > is bound to follow. > > I don't think either of these things were intended by the CCWG. > Whether they are misreadings of our draft language or unintended > consequences of the drafting, this concern is troubling. If it is the > intent of some of those drafting this language to force a vote where none > is currently required, then that is even more troubling. > > I would appreciate some clarification on these matters that I can > bring back to my group. > > I would also appreciate the CCWG considering a change in language to > remove this ambiguity which is currently causing great consternation in my > group. > > I suggest the language below. This m > ore closely track > s > the language of the existing bylaw and avoid the use of the term > "vote," with its potential unintended consequences: > > The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy > matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and > adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take > an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory > Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons > why it decided not to follow that advice. > > If the Board > > determines to take an action that is not consistent with > Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by a full > Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice > of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal > objection, > > such determination must be supported by > two-thirds of the Board, and 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. > > > > I would appreciate your thoughts on this point and the revised > language. Thank you. > > Greg > > _______________________________________________ > 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
Kavouss, Thank you. Your kind words are most appreciated. I must say as well that I am continually impressed by your level of engagement and the value of your contributions, which are always most appreciated. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Grec, Do not take it serious If I referred to your title. This was and will the only time thatI referred or refer to that title. Be assured that I fully respect your competence, qualification and legal knowledge Regards Kavouss
2015-12-16 18:27 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
One other thing -- there's no need to call me "his Excellency." I'll follow U.S. protocol (to the extent I know it) and accept "Mr. President." For some reason, IPC has always had a "President" while all other ICANN groups have "Chairs." The reasons for this may be lost in the mists of time, though I think it's because the initial governing documents of the IPC were based on non-profit corporation bylaws.
When I am not carrying out my official duties (e.g., when we're drinking a beer and you can see my tattoos, to paraphrase Justin Trudeau), you can call me "Greg" (or even "Grec," if you prefer).
Greg
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for your email, Kavouss. I initially thought it was a non-answer, but then I realized that it was a diplomatic answer. I don't spend much time in diplomatic circles, so I initially didn't get it.
I believe that what I am reading (and translating from diplomatic terms to New Yorkese (a more "in-your-face" dialect)) is this: "We do not need to change that part of the proposed Bylaw because it does introduce a mandatory voting requirement where none existed before, and that is intentional (and not a drafting error)."
I suppose any further discussion, or a frank statement of the intent and effect, would draw this issue out of the shadows, and thus jeopardize its inclusion in the final Proposal. Unfortunately, I think we need to draw this issue out of the shadows.
Frankly, within my group, I had been arguing that this was a mere drafting error, that no new voting requirement was being introduced, and that all that was happening here was a change from majority to 2/3 but that the Board's process was otherwise unchanged. I thought those reading more into were catastrophizing. Now I am not so sure.
The GNSO Council will be discussing this in 24 hours. IPC is discussing it in less than 2 hours. It's important to clarify what our proposal says. I expect that IPC's reaction, for one, is going to be significantly more negative if this Proposal intends to change the Board's process and not just the decisional threshold (which is raising enough trouble on its own, thank you very much).
Indeed, I think it undermines the credibility of the entire proposal if there are significant changes hidden in the language and not explained even in the most detailed explanation in the Annexes. Bad drafting is something we can solve in implementation. "Bad concepts" and "Trojan horses" are not. We need to solve them now.
I hope to have something to report to my constituency soon. For better or worse.
Greg Shatan [President, IPC, but writing in my personal capacity]
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Good Afternoon his Excellency Tks for information. I have replied to your conerns before" we do not need to change that part . There are other major problems in ST18. HOWEVER, THE LANGUAGE USED CURRENTLY IS CONCEPTUAL AND NOT THE EXACT bylaws legal text" Regards Kavouss
2015-12-16 15:31 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Kavouss,
Your request came after I went to sleep. I responded as soon as I saw it after I woke up.
I don't think I'm defending anybody's interests in regard to this particular question. I'm just trying to clarify what the Proposal is on a conceptual level.
If the language does not clearly express the CCWG's intent, it needs to be changed. If it is the intent of the CCWG to institute a mandatory vote, that needs to be clarified as well. This is not mentioned anywhere in the detailed explanation of the proposal, so if that is the intent it is not properly expressed.
Either way, something needs to be changed.
Do you have a response to the substance of my question? Is this a new mandatory vote or just bad drafting?
Greg
On Wednesday, December 16, 2015, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Grec, You did not reply to my question? Whose interests you are defending? I think ,we all should to the extent practiceable be neutral in reading and or examining a given text from Professional view points. Having said that , we do not need to change that part . There are other major problems in ST18. HOWEVER, THE LANGUAGE USED CURRENTLY IS CONCEPTUAL AND NOT THE EXACT bylaws legal text Regards Kavouss
2015-12-16 9:48 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
> Interesting you say this now, even though it was raised sometime > last month without attention: > > > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-November/0... > > Maybe now that you've written a full page about it, will warrant > attention. Guess it's a saying of "the more you look at one thing, the less > you see other stuff around". The ccwg focused on consensus and I hope they > will get that for all I care. Good luck with trying to "eat the cake and > have it" at the same time, even though there was IMO no significant reason > to want to eat the cake in the first place (as it's half baked). > > Regards > On Dec 16, 2015 9:10 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> All, >> >> In reviewing the Third Draft Proposal, concerns have been raised >> within my constituency that the proposed Bylaw does more than replace an >> existing "majority" threshold with a new "2/3" threshold. The concern is >> that the proposed Bylaw introduces a "mandatory vote" by the Board in order >> to reject GAC Advice where the Bylaws do not currently require a Board >> vote. Further, there appears to be a concern that, if the Board does not >> take a vote and affirmatively reject a piece of GAC advice, then that GAC >> advice becomes binding on ICANN. >> >> These concerns stem from a reading of the draft Bylaw (new language >> in red): >> >> >> The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy >> matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and >> adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take >> an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory >> Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons >> why it decided not to follow that advice. Any Governmental >> Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory >> Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions >> by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be >> rejected by a vote of two-thirds of the Board, and tThe >> 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. >> >> >> The current language of the Bylaw makes no reference to voting, >> only to the far more ambiguous "determines to take an action." As such, >> adding a reference to a vote can be seen to add a new element (aside from >> the introduction of a 2/3 threshold): the element of a bylaws-mandated >> vote. Similarly, the statement that GAC Advice can only be rejected by a >> vote of the Board can be read to state that if no such vote is taken (or if >> such vote is taken and fails) that the GAC Advice is then something ICANN >> is bound to follow. >> >> I don't think either of these things were intended by the CCWG. >> Whether they are misreadings of our draft language or unintended >> consequences of the drafting, this concern is troubling. If it is the >> intent of some of those drafting this language to force a vote where none >> is currently required, then that is even more troubling. >> >> I would appreciate some clarification on these matters that I can >> bring back to my group. >> >> I would also appreciate the CCWG considering a change in language >> to remove this ambiguity which is currently causing great consternation in >> my group. >> >> I suggest the language below. This m >> ore closely track >> s >> the language of the existing bylaw and avoid the use of the term >> "vote," with its potential unintended consequences: >> >> The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy >> matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and >> adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take >> an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory >> Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons >> why it decided not to follow that advice. >> >> If the Board >> >> determines to take an action that is not consistent with >> Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by a full >> Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice >> of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal >> objection, >> >> such determination must be supported by >> two-thirds of the Board, and 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. >> >> >> >> I would appreciate your thoughts on this point and the revised >> language. Thank you. >> >> Greg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >
participants (3)
-
Greg Shatan -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Seun Ojedeji