TR: ST18 subgroup report Nov 23
Dear Colleagues, Please find attached a report from the ST18 subgroup, for discussion during the CCWG call in about 12 hours. This is a co-chair summary, with options about which we will discuss in order to define our groups way forward for the Draft Report. I want to express my warmest appreciation and thanks to all the ST18 subgroup colleagues who participated with great interest to our work, and especially to the colleagues who provided constructive inputs to these discussions. Best Mathieu De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Envoyé : lundi 23 novembre 2015 18:39 À : s18@icann.org Objet : ST18 subgroup report Nov 23 Dear Colleagues, Please find attached the (very summarized) report of our work that will be presented tomorrow in the CCWG. It will be circulated momentarily to the full group. Thanks again for all the constructive and valuable inputs you have provided to advance this key item of our work. Best, Mathieu
The compromise proposal offered by the co-chairs today in the ST18 call strikes me as sound, and definitely a step in the right direction. The interaction between GAC and Board members when responding to "advice that has broad support and no significant objection", however, must be transparent. I hope transparency language will be introduced to qualify this provision. Arun Sent from my iPhone
On 23-Nov-2015, at 11:12 PM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Please find attached a report from the ST18 subgroup, for discussion during the CCWG call in about 12 hours. This is a co-chair summary, with options about which we will discuss in order to define our group’s way forward for the Draft Report.
I want to express my warmest appreciation and thanks to all the ST18 subgroup colleagues who participated with great interest to our work, and especially to the colleagues who provided constructive inputs to these discussions.
Best Mathieu
De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Envoyé : lundi 23 novembre 2015 18:39 À : s18@icann.org Objet : ST18 subgroup report Nov 23
Dear Colleagues,
Please find attached the (very summarized) report of our work that will be presented tomorrow in the CCWG. It will be circulated momentarily to the full group.
Thanks again for all the constructive and valuable inputs you have provided to advance this key item of our work.
Best, Mathieu <ST18 subgroup report Nov 23.pptx> <ST18 subgroup report Nov 23.pdf> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello, Thanks for the share, looking at the compromise proposal it does seem the group is also telling the board how it should decide on GAC advice. Will there be anything wrong in changing the following: "....may be rejected by a majority vote of the Board." To: "....may be rejected by the Board." Shouldn't the board be able to determine how they make their decision in this particular case, especially considering that any board decision/resolution would normally get a room check for those in support. That said, if my suggested edit is not acceptable, will be good to consider applying the proposed "decision making" text across ACs. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 23 Nov 2015 18:42, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Please find attached a report from the ST18 subgroup, for discussion during the CCWG call in about 12 hours. This is a co-chair summary, with options about which we will discuss in order to define our group’s way forward for the Draft Report.
I want to express my warmest appreciation and thanks to all the ST18 subgroup colleagues who participated with great interest to our work, and especially to the colleagues who provided constructive inputs to these discussions.
Best
Mathieu
*De :* Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] *Envoyé :* lundi 23 novembre 2015 18:39 *À :* s18@icann.org *Objet :* ST18 subgroup report Nov 23
Dear Colleagues,
Please find attached the (very summarized) report of our work that will be presented tomorrow in the CCWG. It will be circulated momentarily to the full group.
Thanks again for all the constructive and valuable inputs you have provided to advance this key item of our work.
Best,
Mathieu
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I am sorry Mathieu, but the compromise is not a well thought out one. The change from full UN-based consensus to absence of significant objection is either meaningless (if it equates to the absence of formal objection/UN standard) or an unacceptable expansion of GAC authority (f it means something less than full UN consensus). If it is the latter, it will be rightly opposed by most members of the community, including me and it will, I am quite certain, result in the rejection of our report by the chartering organizations, by NTIA and by the US Congress. I appreciate that in order to placate a recalcitrant minority of the GAC you are trying to find a compromise, but this language crosses a red line for me and I think for many others. 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=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key From: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 12:42 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: ST18 subgroup report Nov 23 Dear Colleagues, Please find attached a report from the ST18 subgroup, for discussion during the CCWG call in about 12 hours. This is a co-chair summary, with options about which we will discuss in order to define our groups way forward for the Draft Report. I want to express my warmest appreciation and thanks to all the ST18 subgroup colleagues who participated with great interest to our work, and especially to the colleagues who provided constructive inputs to these discussions. Best Mathieu De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Envoyé : lundi 23 novembre 2015 18:39 À : s18@icann.org <mailto:s18@icann.org> Objet : ST18 subgroup report Nov 23 Dear Colleagues, Please find attached the (very summarized) report of our work that will be presented tomorrow in the CCWG. It will be circulated momentarily to the full group. Thanks again for all the constructive and valuable inputs you have provided to advance this key item of our work. Best, Mathieu
Dear Paul, in relation with your comment "recalcitrant minority of the GAC", you may want to review the transcripts of the GAC meetings in Dublin and check from there how many countries are not in favor of ST 18. Best regards Olga 2015-11-23 17:21 GMT-03:00 Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:
I am sorry Mathieu, but the compromise is not a well thought out one. The change from full UN-based consensus to “absence of significant objection” is either meaningless (if it equates to the absence of formal objection/UN standard) or an unacceptable expansion of GAC authority (f it means something less than full UN consensus). If it is the latter, it will be rightly opposed by most members of the community, including me and it will, I am quite certain, result in the rejection of our report by the chartering organizations, by NTIA and by the US Congress. I appreciate that in order to placate a recalcitrant minority of the GAC you are trying to find a compromise, but this language crosses a red line for me and I think for many others.
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:* Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] *Sent:* Monday, November 23, 2015 12:42 PM *To:* Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] TR: ST18 subgroup report Nov 23
Dear Colleagues,
Please find attached a report from the ST18 subgroup, for discussion during the CCWG call in about 12 hours. This is a co-chair summary, with options about which we will discuss in order to define our group’s way forward for the Draft Report.
I want to express my warmest appreciation and thanks to all the ST18 subgroup colleagues who participated with great interest to our work, and especially to the colleagues who provided constructive inputs to these discussions.
Best
Mathieu
*De :* Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>] *Envoyé :* lundi 23 novembre 2015 18:39 *À :* s18@icann.org *Objet :* ST18 subgroup report Nov 23
Dear Colleagues,
Please find attached the (very summarized) report of our work that will be presented tomorrow in the CCWG. It will be circulated momentarily to the full group.
Thanks again for all the constructive and valuable inputs you have provided to advance this key item of our work.
Best,
Mathieu
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Sorry Olga – but I stand by my characterization. Warm regards 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: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 3:37 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: ST18 subgroup report Nov 23 Dear Paul, in relation with your comment "recalcitrant minority of the GAC", you may want to review the transcripts of the GAC meetings in Dublin and check from there how many countries are not in favor of ST 18. Best regards Olga 2015-11-23 17:21 GMT-03:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> >: I am sorry Mathieu, but the compromise is not a well thought out one. The change from full UN-based consensus to “absence of significant objection” is either meaningless (if it equates to the absence of formal objection/UN standard) or an unacceptable expansion of GAC authority (f it means something less than full UN consensus). If it is the latter, it will be rightly opposed by most members of the community, including me and it will, I am quite certain, result in the rejection of our report by the chartering organizations, by NTIA and by the US Congress. I appreciate that in order to placate a recalcitrant minority of the GAC you are trying to find a compromise, but this language crosses a red line for me and I think for many others. 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: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> ] Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 12:42 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: ST18 subgroup report Nov 23 Dear Colleagues, Please find attached a report from the ST18 subgroup, for discussion during the CCWG call in about 12 hours. This is a co-chair summary, with options about which we will discuss in order to define our group’s way forward for the Draft Report. I want to express my warmest appreciation and thanks to all the ST18 subgroup colleagues who participated with great interest to our work, and especially to the colleagues who provided constructive inputs to these discussions. Best Mathieu De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Envoyé : lundi 23 novembre 2015 18:39 À : s18@icann.org <mailto:s18@icann.org> Objet : ST18 subgroup report Nov 23 Dear Colleagues, Please find attached the (very summarized) report of our work that will be presented tomorrow in the CCWG. It will be circulated momentarily to the full group. Thanks again for all the constructive and valuable inputs you have provided to advance this key item of our work. Best, Mathieu _______________________________________________ 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
Fully agree. ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> On Nov 23, 2015, at 2:23 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: I am sorry Mathieu, but the compromise is not a well thought out one. The change from full UN-based consensus to “absence of significant objection” is either meaningless (if it equates to the absence of formal objection/UN standard) or an unacceptable expansion of GAC authority (f it means something less than full UN consensus). If it is the latter, it will be rightly opposed by most members of the community, including me and it will, I am quite certain, result in the rejection of our report by the chartering organizations, by NTIA and by the US Congress. I appreciate that in order to placate a recalcitrant minority of the GAC you are trying to find a compromise, but this language crosses a red line for me and I think for many others. 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: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 12:42 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: ST18 subgroup report Nov 23 Dear Colleagues, Please find attached a report from the ST18 subgroup, for discussion during the CCWG call in about 12 hours. This is a co-chair summary, with options about which we will discuss in order to define our group’s way forward for the Draft Report. I want to express my warmest appreciation and thanks to all the ST18 subgroup colleagues who participated with great interest to our work, and especially to the colleagues who provided constructive inputs to these discussions. Best Mathieu De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Envoyé : lundi 23 novembre 2015 18:39 À : s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Objet : ST18 subgroup report Nov 23 Dear Colleagues, Please find attached the (very summarized) report of our work that will be presented tomorrow in the CCWG. It will be circulated momentarily to the full group. Thanks again for all the constructive and valuable inputs you have provided to advance this key item of our work. Best, Mathieu _______________________________________________ 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
I do not understand why this presents only the European GAC proposal and Thomas Rickert's proposal. This implies that these were the only two options discussed, which is far from correct. They were last minute attempts to find consensus in the group -- and failed to achieve it. A substantial number of participants supported requiring a full consensus in support of GAC advice if it was to trigger the obligation to try an reach a mutually acceptable solution. The without substantial objection language is ambiguous in meaning and also fails to specify who would determine if a minority was substantial or not. What if the GAC amends OP 47 to define a substantial minority as no more than 10 (or 5, 8, 15, whatever) governments? Would that be binding on the Board? ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> On Nov 23, 2015, at 11:44 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, Please find attached a report from the ST18 subgroup, for discussion during the CCWG call in about 12 hours. This is a co-chair summary, with options about which we will discuss in order to define our group’s way forward for the Draft Report. I want to express my warmest appreciation and thanks to all the ST18 subgroup colleagues who participated with great interest to our work, and especially to the colleagues who provided constructive inputs to these discussions. Best Mathieu De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Envoyé : lundi 23 novembre 2015 18:39 À : s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Objet : ST18 subgroup report Nov 23 Dear Colleagues, Please find attached the (very summarized) report of our work that will be presented tomorrow in the CCWG. It will be circulated momentarily to the full group. Thanks again for all the constructive and valuable inputs you have provided to advance this key item of our work. Best, Mathieu <ST18 subgroup report Nov 23.pptx> <ST18 subgroup report Nov 23.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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
I share Brett's concerns. In terms of compromise, as long as GAC retains its full consensus requirement for advice I am ok with requiring a 2/3 board majority to overturn it. However (related to the European proposal), I completely reject any solution which allows something to be called "GAC advice" if it does not have full consensus - even if it can be overturned by a bare majority of the board. The consideration of GAC advice constitutes a major commitment of time and has the potential to undermine or overthrow a painstaking consensus policy development process in the GNSO. GAC advice should therefore have to pass over a fairly high bar before it becomes a formal part of the policy development process. It cannot be just a majority or even a supermajority of governments (again I revert to the sovereignty issue which no one from the GAC has bothered to address.) The GAC should not under any circumstances be allowed to call a position "advice" if it does not have full consensus. --MM
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Schaefer, Brett Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 4:58 PM To: Mathieu Weill Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: ST18 subgroup report Nov 23
I do not understand why this presents only the European GAC proposal and Thomas Rickert's proposal. This implies that these were the only two options discussed, which is far from correct. They were last minute attempts to find consensus in the group -- and failed to achieve it.
A substantial number of participants supported requiring a full consensus in support of GAC advice if it was to trigger the obligation to try an reach a mutually acceptable solution. The without substantial objection language is ambiguous in meaning and also fails to specify who would determine if a minority was substantial or not.
What if the GAC amends OP 47 to define a substantial minority as no more than 10 (or 5, 8, 15, whatever) governments? Would that be binding on the Board?
________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>
On Nov 23, 2015, at 11:44 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Please find attached a report from the ST18 subgroup, for discussion during the CCWG call in about 12 hours. This is a co-chair summary, with options about which we will discuss in order to define our group’s way forward for the Draft Report.
I want to express my warmest appreciation and thanks to all the ST18 subgroup colleagues who participated with great interest to our work, and especially to the colleagues who provided constructive inputs to these discussions.
Best Mathieu
De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Envoyé : lundi 23 novembre 2015 18:39 À : s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Objet : ST18 subgroup report Nov 23
Dear Colleagues,
Please find attached the (very summarized) report of our work that will be presented tomorrow in the CCWG. It will be circulated momentarily to the full group.
Thanks again for all the constructive and valuable inputs you have provided to advance this key item of our work.
Best, Mathieu <ST18 subgroup report Nov 23.pptx> <ST18 subgroup report Nov 23.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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
Im sorry to object again Mathieu, but your report left out a proposal that, by my count, was supported by nearly a dozen different members of the ST18 working group. I am not at all sure why the summary does not include it. It took many forms, but here is my own version of it: The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any GAC advice approved by a full GAC 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 (2/3) of the Board. With respect to such advice, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. I would respectfully, but firmly, object to the exclusion of a proposal that has the support of a large number of participants and members I think there are at least three proposals to consider. And indeed, a fourth (no change from Draft Report #2) is also plausible. Best 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=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key From: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 12:42 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: ST18 subgroup report Nov 23 Dear Colleagues, Please find attached a report from the ST18 subgroup, for discussion during the CCWG call in about 12 hours. This is a co-chair summary, with options about which we will discuss in order to define our groups way forward for the Draft Report. I want to express my warmest appreciation and thanks to all the ST18 subgroup colleagues who participated with great interest to our work, and especially to the colleagues who provided constructive inputs to these discussions. Best Mathieu De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Envoyé : lundi 23 novembre 2015 18:39 À : s18@icann.org <mailto:s18@icann.org> Objet : ST18 subgroup report Nov 23 Dear Colleagues, Please find attached the (very summarized) report of our work that will be presented tomorrow in the CCWG. It will be circulated momentarily to the full group. Thanks again for all the constructive and valuable inputs you have provided to advance this key item of our work. Best, Mathieu
This proposal has substantial support and must be included in the report. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Nov 23, 2015, at 18:29, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: I'm sorry to object again Mathieu, but your report left out a proposal that, by my count, was supported by nearly a dozen different members of the ST18 working group. I am not at all sure why the summary does not include it. It took many forms, but here is my own version of it: The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any GAC advice approved by a full GAC 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 (2/3) of the Board. With respect to such advice, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. I would respectfully, but firmly, object to the exclusion of a proposal that has the support of a large number of participants and members - I think there are at least three proposals to consider. And indeed, a fourth (no change from Draft Report #2) is also plausible. Best 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: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 12:42 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: ST18 subgroup report Nov 23 Dear Colleagues, Please find attached a report from the ST18 subgroup, for discussion during the CCWG call in about 12 hours. This is a co-chair summary, with options about which we will discuss in order to define our group's way forward for the Draft Report. I want to express my warmest appreciation and thanks to all the ST18 subgroup colleagues who participated with great interest to our work, and especially to the colleagues who provided constructive inputs to these discussions. Best Mathieu De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Envoy? : lundi 23 novembre 2015 18:39 ? : s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Objet : ST18 subgroup report Nov 23 Dear Colleagues, Please find attached the (very summarized) report of our work that will be presented tomorrow in the CCWG. It will be circulated momentarily to the full group. Thanks again for all the constructive and valuable inputs you have provided to advance this key item of our work. Best, Mathieu _______________________________________________ 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
+1 Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad On Nov 23, 2015, at 11:08 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: This proposal has substantial support and must be included in the report. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Nov 23, 2015, at 18:29, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: I’m sorry to object again Mathieu, but your report left out a proposal that, by my count, was supported by nearly a dozen different members of the ST18 working group. I am not at all sure why the summary does not include it. It took many forms, but here is my own version of it: The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any GAC advice approved by a full GAC 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 (2/3) of the Board. With respect to such advice, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. I would respectfully, but firmly, object to the exclusion of a proposal that has the support of a large number of participants and members – I think there are at least three proposals to consider. And indeed, a fourth (no change from Draft Report #2) is also plausible. Best 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: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 12:42 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: ST18 subgroup report Nov 23 Dear Colleagues, Please find attached a report from the ST18 subgroup, for discussion during the CCWG call in about 12 hours. This is a co-chair summary, with options about which we will discuss in order to define our group’s way forward for the Draft Report. I want to express my warmest appreciation and thanks to all the ST18 subgroup colleagues who participated with great interest to our work, and especially to the colleagues who provided constructive inputs to these discussions. Best Mathieu De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Envoyé : lundi 23 novembre 2015 18:39 À : s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Objet : ST18 subgroup report Nov 23 Dear Colleagues, Please find attached the (very summarized) report of our work that will be presented tomorrow in the CCWG. It will be circulated momentarily to the full group. Thanks again for all the constructive and valuable inputs you have provided to advance this key item of our work. Best, Mathieu _______________________________________________ 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
I believe this proposal is also consistent with the Board's comments, just transmitted by Bruce Tonkin. Another reason to include it. Greg On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
+1
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VLawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 23, 2015, at 11:08 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
This proposal has substantial support and must be included in the report.
Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology
On Nov 23, 2015, at 18:29, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
I’m sorry to object again Mathieu, but your report left out a proposal that, by my count, was supported by nearly a dozen different members of the ST18 working group. I am not at all sure why the summary does not include it. It took many forms, but here is my own version of it:
The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies.
In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice.
Any GAC advice approved by *a full GAC 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 (2/3) of the Board. *
*With respect to such advice*, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.
I would respectfully, but firmly, object to the exclusion of a proposal that has the support of a large number of participants and members – I think there are at least three proposals to consider. And indeed, a fourth (no change from Draft Report #2) is also plausible.
Best
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:* Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>] *Sent:* Monday, November 23, 2015 12:42 PM *To:* Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] TR: ST18 subgroup report Nov 23
Dear Colleagues,
Please find attached a report from the ST18 subgroup, for discussion during the CCWG call in about 12 hours. This is a co-chair summary, with options about which we will discuss in order to define our group’s way forward for the Draft Report.
I want to express my warmest appreciation and thanks to all the ST18 subgroup colleagues who participated with great interest to our work, and especially to the colleagues who provided constructive inputs to these discussions.
Best
Mathieu
*De :* Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>] *Envoyé :* lundi 23 novembre 2015 18:39 *À :* s18@icann.org *Objet :* ST18 subgroup report Nov 23
Dear Colleagues,
Please find attached the (very summarized) report of our work that will be presented tomorrow in the CCWG. It will be circulated momentarily to the full group.
Thanks again for all the constructive and valuable inputs you have provided to advance this key item of our work.
Best,
Mathieu
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Paul, Thank you for your message. You are correct that the proposal was extensively discussed, and received support but also resistance. It should be mentioned in the report. I will make sure to mention it in the call and update the report accordingly for comprehensiveness. Best Mathieu De : Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com] Envoyé : mardi 24 novembre 2015 00:29 À : 'Mathieu Weill'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Objet : RE: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: ST18 subgroup report Nov 23 Im sorry to object again Mathieu, but your report left out a proposal that, by my count, was supported by nearly a dozen different members of the ST18 working group. I am not at all sure why the summary does not include it. It took many forms, but here is my own version of it: The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any GAC advice approved by a full GAC 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 (2/3) of the Board. With respect to such advice, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. I would respectfully, but firmly, object to the exclusion of a proposal that has the support of a large number of participants and members I think there are at least three proposals to consider. And indeed, a fourth (no change from Draft Report #2) is also plausible. Best 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=arti cle&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key From: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 12:42 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: ST18 subgroup report Nov 23 Dear Colleagues, Please find attached a report from the ST18 subgroup, for discussion during the CCWG call in about 12 hours. This is a co-chair summary, with options about which we will discuss in order to define our groups way forward for the Draft Report. I want to express my warmest appreciation and thanks to all the ST18 subgroup colleagues who participated with great interest to our work, and especially to the colleagues who provided constructive inputs to these discussions. Best Mathieu De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Envoyé : lundi 23 novembre 2015 18:39 À : s18@icann.org Objet : ST18 subgroup report Nov 23 Dear Colleagues, Please find attached the (very summarized) report of our work that will be presented tomorrow in the CCWG. It will be circulated momentarily to the full group. Thanks again for all the constructive and valuable inputs you have provided to advance this key item of our work. Best, Mathieu
participants (9)
-
Arun Mohan Sukumar -
Greg Shatan -
Mathieu Weill -
Mueller, Milton L -
Olga Cavalli -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Phil Corwin -
Schaefer, Brett -
Seun Ojedeji