NTIA Statement on ST 18
Hello everyone, Assistant Secretary Strickling has asked that I share this with the CCWG. Best regards, Suz NTIA Statement on Stress Test 18 November 25, 2015 NTIA has been closely following the discussions in the CCWG-Accountability, including the recently concluded small group on stress test 18. As has been the case throughout the work of the CCWG, we are impressed by the time and dedication so many of you are putting into these important discussions. We thank everyone for their efforts as the group works to finalize the proposal for publication on November 30. NTIA has long believed that governments, like all stakeholders, have an important role to play within multistakeholder processes, including ICANN. Our position on that has not changed. As the CCWG finalizes its proposals for enhancing ICANN's accountability, we feel we should reiterate our view, as we stated last July, that ICANN preserve and clarify the current practice of the Board in responding to advice it receives from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Specifically, ICANN should amend its Bylaws to clarify that the Board is required to enter into a formal consultation process with the GAC only where it receives GAC advice that is consensus advice based on the current definition within the GAC's Operating Principles, that is, advice to which no GAC member has raised a formal objection. We want to make clear that nothing about this proposal is intended to limit how the GAC determines what advice it submits to the Board. As the Bylaws make clear, the Board is obligated to duly take all GAC advice into account. However, it is not practicable for the Board to give GAC advice special consideration unless it is consensus advice as currently defined in the GAC Operating Principles. Anything less than consensus places the Board in the awkward, if not impossible, position of trying to choose between governments with conflicting opinions. NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments. Accordingly, every time the GAC provides consensus advice that it expects to trigger the special Bylaws consideration from the Board, it must be unambiguous and consistent with the current definition in the Operating Principles. Asking the Board to interpret any other threshold of support seems counter to the spirit of the CCWG's efforts to empower the community in a clear and consistent manner. It also undermines the work done to implement the relevant recommendations of ATRT1 to fix what the community diagnosed as a dysfunctional Board-GAC relationship. We are aware that some countries are concerned that the current GAC Operating Principles could lead to a single-country veto of GAC advice to the detriment of other countries. We too share that concern. But the right place to deal with that issue is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. NTIA stands ready to participate in and contribute to such a discussion to resolve that concern at the appropriate time and place. Suzanne Murray Radell Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA sradell@ntia.doc.gov 202-482-3167
Thanks to you and your NTIA colleagues for the clear statement on ST18. 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 25, 2015, at 5:34 PM, Radell, Suzanne <SRadell@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:SRadell@ntia.doc.gov>> wrote: Hello everyone, Assistant Secretary Strickling has asked that I share this with the CCWG. Best regards, Suz NTIA Statement on Stress Test 18 November 25, 2015 NTIA has been closely following the discussions in the CCWG-Accountability, including the recently concluded small group on stress test 18. As has been the case throughout the work of the CCWG, we are impressed by the time and dedication so many of you are putting into these important discussions. We thank everyone for their efforts as the group works to finalize the proposal for publication on November 30. NTIA has long believed that governments, like all stakeholders, have an important role to play within multistakeholder processes, including ICANN. Our position on that has not changed. As the CCWG finalizes its proposals for enhancing ICANN’s accountability, we feel we should reiterate our view, as we stated last July, that ICANN preserve and clarify the current practice of the Board in responding to advice it receives from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Specifically, ICANN should amend its Bylaws to clarify that the Board is required to enter into a formal consultation process with the GAC only where it receives GAC advice that is consensus advice based on the current definition within the GAC’s Operating Principles, that is, advice to which no GAC member has raised a formal objection. We want to make clear that nothing about this proposal is intended to limit how the GAC determines what advice it submits to the Board. As the Bylaws make clear, the Board is obligated to duly take all GAC advice into account. However, it is not practicable for the Board to give GAC advice special consideration unless it is consensus advice as currently defined in the GAC Operating Principles. Anything less than consensus places the Board in the awkward, if not impossible, position of trying to choose between governments with conflicting opinions. NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments. Accordingly, every time the GAC provides consensus advice that it expects to trigger the special Bylaws consideration from the Board, it must be unambiguous and consistent with the current definition in the Operating Principles. Asking the Board to interpret any other threshold of support seems counter to the spirit of the CCWG’s efforts to empower the community in a clear and consistent manner. It also undermines the work done to implement the relevant recommendations of ATRT1 to fix what the community diagnosed as a dysfunctional Board-GAC relationship. We are aware that some countries are concerned that the current GAC Operating Principles could lead to a single-country veto of GAC advice to the detriment of other countries. We too share that concern. But the right place to deal with that issue is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. NTIA stands ready to participate in and contribute to such a discussion to resolve that concern at the appropriate time and place. Suzanne Murray Radell Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA sradell@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:sradell@ntia.doc.gov> 202-482-3167 _______________________________________________ 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
Hello Suzanne, Thank you for the NTIA's timely comments and suggestions. Regards, Phil Phil Buckingham CEO,Dot Advice Limited Email:phil@dotadvice.co.uk Skype: philip.buckingham14 Mobile: 00 44 (0)7957643357 LinkedIn: Phil Buckingham From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Radell, Suzanne Sent: 25 November 2015 22:33 To: Accountability Cross Community Cc: ACCT-Staff Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18 Hello everyone, Assistant Secretary Strickling has asked that I share this with the CCWG. Best regards, Suz NTIA Statement on Stress Test 18 November 25, 2015 NTIA has been closely following the discussions in the CCWG-Accountability, including the recently concluded small group on stress test 18. As has been the case throughout the work of the CCWG, we are impressed by the time and dedication so many of you are putting into these important discussions. We thank everyone for their efforts as the group works to finalize the proposal for publication on November 30. NTIA has long believed that governments, like all stakeholders, have an important role to play within multistakeholder processes, including ICANN. Our position on that has not changed. As the CCWG finalizes its proposals for enhancing ICANN's accountability, we feel we should reiterate our view, as we stated last July, that ICANN preserve and clarify the current practice of the Board in responding to advice it receives from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Specifically, ICANN should amend its Bylaws to clarify that the Board is required to enter into a formal consultation process with the GAC only where it receives GAC advice that is consensus advice based on the current definition within the GAC's Operating Principles, that is, advice to which no GAC member has raised a formal objection. We want to make clear that nothing about this proposal is intended to limit how the GAC determines what advice it submits to the Board. As the Bylaws make clear, the Board is obligated to duly take all GAC advice into account. However, it is not practicable for the Board to give GAC advice special consideration unless it is consensus advice as currently defined in the GAC Operating Principles. Anything less than consensus places the Board in the awkward, if not impossible, position of trying to choose between governments with conflicting opinions. NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments. Accordingly, every time the GAC provides consensus advice that it expects to trigger the special Bylaws consideration from the Board, it must be unambiguous and consistent with the current definition in the Operating Principles. Asking the Board to interpret any other threshold of support seems counter to the spirit of the CCWG's efforts to empower the community in a clear and consistent manner. It also undermines the work done to implement the relevant recommendations of ATRT1 to fix what the community diagnosed as a dysfunctional Board-GAC relationship. We are aware that some countries are concerned that the current GAC Operating Principles could lead to a single-country veto of GAC advice to the detriment of other countries. We too share that concern. But the right place to deal with that issue is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. NTIA stands ready to participate in and contribute to such a discussion to resolve that concern at the appropriate time and place. Suzanne Murray Radell Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA sradell@ntia.doc.gov 202-482-3167
Thank you for posting NTIA's comment on this, Suzanne. It is for GAC colleagues in the CCWG to weigh in on Assistant Secretary Strickling's note. What concerns me is the NTIA's effort to intervene at this crucial stage in ST 18 discussions. Frankly, it defeats the spirit of compromise that the CCWG has been striving for on this issue. The NTIA suggests GAC should not be worried about a "single country veto", when it is exercising precisely that during this important exercise. Apologies for what may sound like harsh words: the CCWG is well attuned to attempts by one powerful stakeholder to steer the debate, and has so far resisted/responded to them admirably. One hopes this will be no exception. Best, Arun -- Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com +91-9871943272 On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk> wrote:
Hello Suzanne,
Thank you for the NTIA’s timely comments and suggestions.
Regards,
Phil
Phil Buckingham
CEO,Dot Advice Limited
Email:phil@dotadvice.co.uk
Skype: philip.buckingham14
Mobile: 00 44 (0)7957643357
LinkedIn: Phil Buckingham
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Radell, Suzanne *Sent:* 25 November 2015 22:33 *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Cc:* ACCT-Staff *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18
Hello everyone, Assistant Secretary Strickling has asked that I share this with the CCWG. Best regards, Suz
*NTIA Statement on Stress Test 18*
*November 25, 2015*
NTIA has been closely following the discussions in the CCWG-Accountability, including the recently concluded small group on stress test 18. As has been the case throughout the work of the CCWG, we are impressed by the time and dedication so many of you are putting into these important discussions. We thank everyone for their efforts as the group works to finalize the proposal for publication on November 30.
NTIA has long believed that governments, like all stakeholders, have an important role to play within multistakeholder processes, including ICANN. Our position on that has not changed. As the CCWG finalizes its proposals for enhancing ICANN’s accountability, we feel we should reiterate our view, as we stated last July, that ICANN preserve and clarify the current practice of the Board in responding to advice it receives from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Specifically, ICANN should amend its Bylaws to clarify that the Board is required to enter into a formal consultation process with the GAC only where it receives GAC advice that is consensus advice based on the current definition within the GAC’s Operating Principles, that is, advice to which no GAC member has raised a formal objection.
We want to make clear that nothing about this proposal is intended to limit how the GAC determines what advice it submits to the Board. As the Bylaws make clear, the Board is obligated to duly take all GAC advice into account. However, it is not practicable for the Board to give GAC advice special consideration unless it is consensus advice as currently defined in the GAC Operating Principles. Anything less than consensus places the Board in the awkward, if not impossible, position of trying to choose between governments with conflicting opinions. NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments. Accordingly, every time the GAC provides consensus advice that it expects to trigger the special Bylaws consideration from the Board, it must be unambiguous and consistent with the current definition in the Operating Principles. Asking the Board to interpret any other threshold of support seems counter to the spirit of the CCWG’s efforts to empower the community in a clear and consistent manner. It also undermines the work done to implement the relevant recommendations of ATRT1 to fix what the community diagnosed as a dysfunctional Board-GAC relationship.
We are aware that some countries are concerned that the current GAC Operating Principles could lead to a single-country veto of GAC advice to the detriment of other countries. We too share that concern. But the right place to deal with that issue is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. NTIA stands ready to participate in and contribute to such a discussion to resolve that concern at the appropriate time and place.
*Suzanne Murray Radell*
*Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA*
*sradell@ntia.doc.gov <sradell@ntia.doc.gov>*
*202-482-3167*
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
hi Arun, I think you are eliding two things in an unfortunate way - the GAC decision-making process, and the fact of the United States using its leverage in the transition discussion. The fact that NTIA has set out requirements for the transition to occur, and sharing its view about ST18's importance in validating one of those requirements, is not a commentary on decision-making in GAC. Or am I missing something? best Jordan On 26 November 2015 at 16:43, Arun Mohan Sukumar <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org
wrote:
Thank you for posting NTIA's comment on this, Suzanne.
It is for GAC colleagues in the CCWG to weigh in on Assistant Secretary Strickling's note. What concerns me is the NTIA's effort to intervene at this crucial stage in ST 18 discussions. Frankly, it defeats the spirit of compromise that the CCWG has been striving for on this issue. The NTIA suggests GAC should not be worried about a "single country veto", when it is exercising precisely that during this important exercise.
Apologies for what may sound like harsh words: the CCWG is well attuned to attempts by one powerful stakeholder to steer the debate, and has so far resisted/responded to them admirably. One hopes this will be no exception.
Best, Arun
-- Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com +91-9871943272
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk> wrote:
Hello Suzanne,
Thank you for the NTIA’s timely comments and suggestions.
Regards,
Phil
Phil Buckingham
CEO,Dot Advice Limited
Email:phil@dotadvice.co.uk
Skype: philip.buckingham14
Mobile: 00 44 (0)7957643357
LinkedIn: Phil Buckingham
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Radell, Suzanne *Sent:* 25 November 2015 22:33 *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Cc:* ACCT-Staff *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18
Hello everyone, Assistant Secretary Strickling has asked that I share this with the CCWG. Best regards, Suz
*NTIA Statement on Stress Test 18*
*November 25, 2015*
NTIA has been closely following the discussions in the CCWG-Accountability, including the recently concluded small group on stress test 18. As has been the case throughout the work of the CCWG, we are impressed by the time and dedication so many of you are putting into these important discussions. We thank everyone for their efforts as the group works to finalize the proposal for publication on November 30.
NTIA has long believed that governments, like all stakeholders, have an important role to play within multistakeholder processes, including ICANN. Our position on that has not changed. As the CCWG finalizes its proposals for enhancing ICANN’s accountability, we feel we should reiterate our view, as we stated last July, that ICANN preserve and clarify the current practice of the Board in responding to advice it receives from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Specifically, ICANN should amend its Bylaws to clarify that the Board is required to enter into a formal consultation process with the GAC only where it receives GAC advice that is consensus advice based on the current definition within the GAC’s Operating Principles, that is, advice to which no GAC member has raised a formal objection.
We want to make clear that nothing about this proposal is intended to limit how the GAC determines what advice it submits to the Board. As the Bylaws make clear, the Board is obligated to duly take all GAC advice into account. However, it is not practicable for the Board to give GAC advice special consideration unless it is consensus advice as currently defined in the GAC Operating Principles. Anything less than consensus places the Board in the awkward, if not impossible, position of trying to choose between governments with conflicting opinions. NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments. Accordingly, every time the GAC provides consensus advice that it expects to trigger the special Bylaws consideration from the Board, it must be unambiguous and consistent with the current definition in the Operating Principles. Asking the Board to interpret any other threshold of support seems counter to the spirit of the CCWG’s efforts to empower the community in a clear and consistent manner. It also undermines the work done to implement the relevant recommendations of ATRT1 to fix what the community diagnosed as a dysfunctional Board-GAC relationship.
We are aware that some countries are concerned that the current GAC Operating Principles could lead to a single-country veto of GAC advice to the detriment of other countries. We too share that concern. But the right place to deal with that issue is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. NTIA stands ready to participate in and contribute to such a discussion to resolve that concern at the appropriate time and place.
*Suzanne Murray Radell*
*Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA*
*sradell@ntia.doc.gov <sradell@ntia.doc.gov>*
*202-482-3167*
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *
Jordan, perhaps I am looking at this with too critical an eye, but the note does not seem to have the benign effect of sharing the NTIA's view: let me highlight two separate but somewhat contradictory statements in this note: "NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as
introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments."
and elsewhere..
"But the right place to deal with that issue [of single-country veto] is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. "
So on the one hand, NTIA feels the GAC's autonomy to define consensus must be limited (to shield the Board from a difficult position etc etc) but on the other, the GAC is well-equipped internally to deal with the intractable veto concern? Why not let the GAC evaluate its impact of fractured advice on the Board - surely governments understand the negative consequences of engaging the Board in a push-and-pull exercise? In any event, as I wrote previously, this is for GAC colleagues to discuss. The message, however, does not inspire confidence. -- Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com +91-9871943272 On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
hi Arun,
I think you are eliding two things in an unfortunate way - the GAC decision-making process, and the fact of the United States using its leverage in the transition discussion. The fact that NTIA has set out requirements for the transition to occur, and sharing its view about ST18's importance in validating one of those requirements, is not a commentary on decision-making in GAC.
Or am I missing something?
best Jordan
On 26 November 2015 at 16:43, Arun Mohan Sukumar < arun.sukumar@orfonline.org> wrote:
Thank you for posting NTIA's comment on this, Suzanne.
It is for GAC colleagues in the CCWG to weigh in on Assistant Secretary Strickling's note. What concerns me is the NTIA's effort to intervene at this crucial stage in ST 18 discussions. Frankly, it defeats the spirit of compromise that the CCWG has been striving for on this issue. The NTIA suggests GAC should not be worried about a "single country veto", when it is exercising precisely that during this important exercise.
Apologies for what may sound like harsh words: the CCWG is well attuned to attempts by one powerful stakeholder to steer the debate, and has so far resisted/responded to them admirably. One hopes this will be no exception.
Best, Arun
-- Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com +91-9871943272
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk> wrote:
Hello Suzanne,
Thank you for the NTIA’s timely comments and suggestions.
Regards,
Phil
Phil Buckingham
CEO,Dot Advice Limited
Email:phil@dotadvice.co.uk
Skype: philip.buckingham14
Mobile: 00 44 (0)7957643357
LinkedIn: Phil Buckingham
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Radell, Suzanne *Sent:* 25 November 2015 22:33 *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Cc:* ACCT-Staff *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18
Hello everyone, Assistant Secretary Strickling has asked that I share this with the CCWG. Best regards, Suz
*NTIA Statement on Stress Test 18*
*November 25, 2015*
NTIA has been closely following the discussions in the CCWG-Accountability, including the recently concluded small group on stress test 18. As has been the case throughout the work of the CCWG, we are impressed by the time and dedication so many of you are putting into these important discussions. We thank everyone for their efforts as the group works to finalize the proposal for publication on November 30.
NTIA has long believed that governments, like all stakeholders, have an important role to play within multistakeholder processes, including ICANN. Our position on that has not changed. As the CCWG finalizes its proposals for enhancing ICANN’s accountability, we feel we should reiterate our view, as we stated last July, that ICANN preserve and clarify the current practice of the Board in responding to advice it receives from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Specifically, ICANN should amend its Bylaws to clarify that the Board is required to enter into a formal consultation process with the GAC only where it receives GAC advice that is consensus advice based on the current definition within the GAC’s Operating Principles, that is, advice to which no GAC member has raised a formal objection.
We want to make clear that nothing about this proposal is intended to limit how the GAC determines what advice it submits to the Board. As the Bylaws make clear, the Board is obligated to duly take all GAC advice into account. However, it is not practicable for the Board to give GAC advice special consideration unless it is consensus advice as currently defined in the GAC Operating Principles. Anything less than consensus places the Board in the awkward, if not impossible, position of trying to choose between governments with conflicting opinions. NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments. Accordingly, every time the GAC provides consensus advice that it expects to trigger the special Bylaws consideration from the Board, it must be unambiguous and consistent with the current definition in the Operating Principles. Asking the Board to interpret any other threshold of support seems counter to the spirit of the CCWG’s efforts to empower the community in a clear and consistent manner. It also undermines the work done to implement the relevant recommendations of ATRT1 to fix what the community diagnosed as a dysfunctional Board-GAC relationship.
We are aware that some countries are concerned that the current GAC Operating Principles could lead to a single-country veto of GAC advice to the detriment of other countries. We too share that concern. But the right place to deal with that issue is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. NTIA stands ready to participate in and contribute to such a discussion to resolve that concern at the appropriate time and place.
*Suzanne Murray Radell*
*Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA*
*sradell@ntia.doc.gov <sradell@ntia.doc.gov>*
*202-482-3167*
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz
*A better world through a better Internet *
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
hi Arun, I think the crux of where we see this differently is here: On 26 November 2015 at 16:58, Arun Mohan Sukumar <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org
wrote:
Jordan, perhaps I am looking at this with too critical an eye, but the note does not seem to have the benign effect of sharing the NTIA's view: let me highlight two separate but somewhat contradictory statements in this note:
"NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as
introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments."
This applies to what ICANN must do in response to GAC advice, as far as I can tell. The aim of ST18 is to prevent ICANN having to respond to advice in a manner that leads to the formal reconciliation attempt process, unless that advice comes from consensus. That's what the stress test was developed to analyse and that is what the CCWG included in its second draft report, a way to resolve that problem. Throughout we've been clear that it has *zero* impact on GAC decision-making per se. The quote you add below does deal with that, but it doesn't seem to me to be obvious that protecting ICANN from having to manage intergovernmental dispute has to be linked with how GAC makes decisions. anyhow, will be interested to see the responses of others, including GACcers! JTC
and elsewhere..
"But the right place to deal with that issue [of single-country veto] is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. "
So on the one hand, NTIA feels the GAC's autonomy to define consensus must be limited (to shield the Board from a difficult position etc etc) but on the other, the GAC is well-equipped internally to deal with the intractable veto concern? Why not let the GAC evaluate its impact of fractured advice on the Board - surely governments understand the negative consequences of engaging the Board in a push-and-pull exercise?
In any event, as I wrote previously, this is for GAC colleagues to discuss. The message, however, does not inspire confidence.
-- Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com +91-9871943272
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
hi Arun,
I think you are eliding two things in an unfortunate way - the GAC decision-making process, and the fact of the United States using its leverage in the transition discussion. The fact that NTIA has set out requirements for the transition to occur, and sharing its view about ST18's importance in validating one of those requirements, is not a commentary on decision-making in GAC.
Or am I missing something?
best Jordan
On 26 November 2015 at 16:43, Arun Mohan Sukumar < arun.sukumar@orfonline.org> wrote:
Thank you for posting NTIA's comment on this, Suzanne.
It is for GAC colleagues in the CCWG to weigh in on Assistant Secretary Strickling's note. What concerns me is the NTIA's effort to intervene at this crucial stage in ST 18 discussions. Frankly, it defeats the spirit of compromise that the CCWG has been striving for on this issue. The NTIA suggests GAC should not be worried about a "single country veto", when it is exercising precisely that during this important exercise.
Apologies for what may sound like harsh words: the CCWG is well attuned to attempts by one powerful stakeholder to steer the debate, and has so far resisted/responded to them admirably. One hopes this will be no exception.
Best, Arun
-- Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com +91-9871943272
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk> wrote:
Hello Suzanne,
Thank you for the NTIA’s timely comments and suggestions.
Regards,
Phil
Phil Buckingham
CEO,Dot Advice Limited
Email:phil@dotadvice.co.uk
Skype: philip.buckingham14
Mobile: 00 44 (0)7957643357
LinkedIn: Phil Buckingham
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Radell, Suzanne *Sent:* 25 November 2015 22:33 *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Cc:* ACCT-Staff *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18
Hello everyone, Assistant Secretary Strickling has asked that I share this with the CCWG. Best regards, Suz
*NTIA Statement on Stress Test 18*
*November 25, 2015*
NTIA has been closely following the discussions in the CCWG-Accountability, including the recently concluded small group on stress test 18. As has been the case throughout the work of the CCWG, we are impressed by the time and dedication so many of you are putting into these important discussions. We thank everyone for their efforts as the group works to finalize the proposal for publication on November 30.
NTIA has long believed that governments, like all stakeholders, have an important role to play within multistakeholder processes, including ICANN. Our position on that has not changed. As the CCWG finalizes its proposals for enhancing ICANN’s accountability, we feel we should reiterate our view, as we stated last July, that ICANN preserve and clarify the current practice of the Board in responding to advice it receives from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Specifically, ICANN should amend its Bylaws to clarify that the Board is required to enter into a formal consultation process with the GAC only where it receives GAC advice that is consensus advice based on the current definition within the GAC’s Operating Principles, that is, advice to which no GAC member has raised a formal objection.
We want to make clear that nothing about this proposal is intended to limit how the GAC determines what advice it submits to the Board. As the Bylaws make clear, the Board is obligated to duly take all GAC advice into account. However, it is not practicable for the Board to give GAC advice special consideration unless it is consensus advice as currently defined in the GAC Operating Principles. Anything less than consensus places the Board in the awkward, if not impossible, position of trying to choose between governments with conflicting opinions. NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments. Accordingly, every time the GAC provides consensus advice that it expects to trigger the special Bylaws consideration from the Board, it must be unambiguous and consistent with the current definition in the Operating Principles. Asking the Board to interpret any other threshold of support seems counter to the spirit of the CCWG’s efforts to empower the community in a clear and consistent manner. It also undermines the work done to implement the relevant recommendations of ATRT1 to fix what the community diagnosed as a dysfunctional Board-GAC relationship.
We are aware that some countries are concerned that the current GAC Operating Principles could lead to a single-country veto of GAC advice to the detriment of other countries. We too share that concern. But the right place to deal with that issue is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. NTIA stands ready to participate in and contribute to such a discussion to resolve that concern at the appropriate time and place.
*Suzanne Murray Radell*
*Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA*
*sradell@ntia.doc.gov <sradell@ntia.doc.gov>*
*202-482-3167*
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz
*A better world through a better Internet *
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *
Dear all Would you say that imposing consumer prices has no impact on the offerer? Would you say that imposing that the Board could only consider PDP backed by unanimous support would have no impact on the corresponding SO? I guess it must be something in the English language, which definitely escapes me, but when you have a supplier who only (or principally) supplies one single consumer, regulating how that consumer may receive your goods/services, implied regulating the supplier... regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 26.11.2015 um 05:03 schrieb Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>: hi Arun, I think the crux of where we see this differently is here: On 26 November 2015 at 16:58, Arun Mohan Sukumar <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org<mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org>> wrote: Jordan, perhaps I am looking at this with too critical an eye, but the note does not seem to have the benign effect of sharing the NTIA's view: let me highlight two separate but somewhat contradictory statements in this note: "NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments." This applies to what ICANN must do in response to GAC advice, as far as I can tell. The aim of ST18 is to prevent ICANN having to respond to advice in a manner that leads to the formal reconciliation attempt process, unless that advice comes from consensus. That's what the stress test was developed to analyse and that is what the CCWG included in its second draft report, a way to resolve that problem. Throughout we've been clear that it has *zero* impact on GAC decision-making per se. The quote you add below does deal with that, but it doesn't seem to me to be obvious that protecting ICANN from having to manage intergovernmental dispute has to be linked with how GAC makes decisions. anyhow, will be interested to see the responses of others, including GACcers! JTC and elsewhere.. "But the right place to deal with that issue [of single-country veto] is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. " So on the one hand, NTIA feels the GAC's autonomy to define consensus must be limited (to shield the Board from a difficult position etc etc) but on the other, the GAC is well-equipped internally to deal with the intractable veto concern? Why not let the GAC evaluate its impact of fractured advice on the Board - surely governments understand the negative consequences of engaging the Board in a push-and-pull exercise? In any event, as I wrote previously, this is for GAC colleagues to discuss. The message, however, does not inspire confidence. -- Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com<http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/> +91-9871943272<tel:%2B91-9871943272> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: hi Arun, I think you are eliding two things in an unfortunate way - the GAC decision-making process, and the fact of the United States using its leverage in the transition discussion. The fact that NTIA has set out requirements for the transition to occur, and sharing its view about ST18's importance in validating one of those requirements, is not a commentary on decision-making in GAC. Or am I missing something? best Jordan On 26 November 2015 at 16:43, Arun Mohan Sukumar <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org<mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org>> wrote: Thank you for posting NTIA's comment on this, Suzanne. It is for GAC colleagues in the CCWG to weigh in on Assistant Secretary Strickling's note. What concerns me is the NTIA's effort to intervene at this crucial stage in ST 18 discussions. Frankly, it defeats the spirit of compromise that the CCWG has been striving for on this issue. The NTIA suggests GAC should not be worried about a "single country veto", when it is exercising precisely that during this important exercise. Apologies for what may sound like harsh words: the CCWG is well attuned to attempts by one powerful stakeholder to steer the debate, and has so far resisted/responded to them admirably. One hopes this will be no exception. Best, Arun -- Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com<http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/> +91-9871943272<tel:%2B91-9871943272> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>> wrote: Hello Suzanne, Thank you for the NTIA’s timely comments and suggestions. Regards, Phil Phil Buckingham CEO,Dot Advice Limited Email:phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:Email%3Aphil@dotadvice.co.uk> Skype: philip.buckingham14 Mobile: 00 44 (0)7957643357<tel:00%2044%20%280%297957643357> LinkedIn: Phil Buckingham From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Radell, Suzanne Sent: 25 November 2015 22:33 To: Accountability Cross Community Cc: ACCT-Staff Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18 Hello everyone, Assistant Secretary Strickling has asked that I share this with the CCWG. Best regards, Suz NTIA Statement on Stress Test 18 November 25, 2015 NTIA has been closely following the discussions in the CCWG-Accountability, including the recently concluded small group on stress test 18. As has been the case throughout the work of the CCWG, we are impressed by the time and dedication so many of you are putting into these important discussions. We thank everyone for their efforts as the group works to finalize the proposal for publication on November 30. NTIA has long believed that governments, like all stakeholders, have an important role to play within multistakeholder processes, including ICANN. Our position on that has not changed. As the CCWG finalizes its proposals for enhancing ICANN’s accountability, we feel we should reiterate our view, as we stated last July, that ICANN preserve and clarify the current practice of the Board in responding to advice it receives from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Specifically, ICANN should amend its Bylaws to clarify that the Board is required to enter into a formal consultation process with the GAC only where it receives GAC advice that is consensus advice based on the current definition within the GAC’s Operating Principles, that is, advice to which no GAC member has raised a formal objection. We want to make clear that nothing about this proposal is intended to limit how the GAC determines what advice it submits to the Board. As the Bylaws make clear, the Board is obligated to duly take all GAC advice into account. However, it is not practicable for the Board to give GAC advice special consideration unless it is consensus advice as currently defined in the GAC Operating Principles. Anything less than consensus places the Board in the awkward, if not impossible, position of trying to choose between governments with conflicting opinions. NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments. Accordingly, every time the GAC provides consensus advice that it expects to trigger the special Bylaws consideration from the Board, it must be unambiguous and consistent with the current definition in the Operating Principles. Asking the Board to interpret any other threshold of support seems counter to the spirit of the CCWG’s efforts to empower the community in a clear and consistent manner. It also undermines the work done to implement the relevant recommendations of ATRT1 to fix what the community diagnosed as a dysfunctional Board-GAC relationship. We are aware that some countries are concerned that the current GAC Operating Principles could lead to a single-country veto of GAC advice to the detriment of other countries. We too share that concern. But the right place to deal with that issue is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. NTIA stands ready to participate in and contribute to such a discussion to resolve that concern at the appropriate time and place. Suzanne Murray Radell Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA sradell@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:sradell@ntia.doc.gov> 202-482-3167 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-4-495-2118<tel:%2B64-4-495-2118> (office) | +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz<http://www.internetnz.nz> A better world through a better Internet _______________________________________________ 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 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz<http://www.internetnz.nz> A better world through a better Internet _______________________________________________ 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
Jordan is right. Mr Strickling, from the beginning, it seems to me has done two things, both of which were intended to be, and objectively are, helpful. 1. Clearly set out the criteria under which the NTIA will transfer the legal oversight it has historically asserted over ICANN under statutory power, to the private sector (i.e. to the global stakeholder community. 2. Occasionally provided the odd 'nudge' in 'the right direction' No-one who has attended ICANN meetings or CCWG F2F should be in any doubt of the wishes of the USG in regards to certain important matters in the developing proposal. And I made sure to read his blog posts in this regard, too. This intervention is simply another, carefully written and diplomatic, clie that tells us what we (the CCWG) need to do to unlock the achievement of transition. The Government of the United States is 'first among equals' in this discussion. Its views have to be given a different weight, as Jordan correctly notes. Some appear to recommend the CCWG resist. Resistance would be futile. It would also be foolish, I submit. But then, so far as I can see, the accountability exercise appears to be in such disarray anyway, that even if you took the advice being proffered here, it's quite doubtful you are going to achieve an acceptable proposal withing the self-imposed time frames. But maybe I'm missing something. On 26/11/15 03:47, Jordan Carter wrote:
hi Arun,
I think you are eliding two things in an unfortunate way - the GAC decision-making process, and the fact of the United States using its leverage in the transition discussion. The fact that NTIA has set out requirements for the transition to occur, and sharing its view about ST18's importance in validating one of those requirements, is not a commentary on decision-making in GAC.
Or am I missing something?
best Jordan
On 26 November 2015 at 16:43, Arun Mohan Sukumar <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org <mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org>> wrote:
Thank you for posting NTIA's comment on this, Suzanne.
It is for GAC colleagues in the CCWG to weigh in on Assistant Secretary Strickling's note. What concerns me is the NTIA's effort to intervene at this crucial stage in ST 18 discussions. Frankly, it defeats the spirit of compromise that the CCWG has been striving for on this issue. The NTIA suggests GAC should not be worried about a "single country veto", when it is exercising precisely that during this important exercise.
Apologies for what may sound like harsh words: the CCWG is well attuned to attempts by one powerful stakeholder to steer the debate, and has so far resisted/responded to them admirably. One hopes this will be no exception.
Best, Arun
-- Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com <http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/> +91-9871943272 <tel:%2B91-9871943272>
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk <mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>> wrote:
Hello Suzanne,____
__ __
Thank you for the NTIA’s timely comments and suggestions.____
Regards,____
Phil____
__ __
Phil Buckingham____
CEO,Dot Advice Limited____
Email:phil@dotadvice.co.uk <mailto:Email%3Aphil@dotadvice.co.uk>____
Skype: philip.buckingham14____
Mobile: 00 44 (0)7957643357 <tel:00%2044%20%280%297957643357>____
LinkedIn: Phil Buckingham____
__ __
__ __
__ __
__ __
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Radell, Suzanne *Sent:* 25 November 2015 22:33 *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Cc:* ACCT-Staff *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18____
__ __
Hello everyone, Assistant Secretary Strickling has asked that I share this with the CCWG. Best regards, Suz____
__ __
*NTIA Statement on Stress Test 18____*
*November 25, 2015____*
*__ __*
NTIA has been closely following the discussions in the CCWG-Accountability, including the recently concluded small group on stress test 18. As has been the case throughout the work of the CCWG, we are impressed by the time and dedication so many of you are putting into these important discussions. We thank everyone for their efforts as the group works to finalize the proposal for publication on November 30. ____
__ __
NTIA has long believed that governments, like all stakeholders, have an important role to play within multistakeholder processes, including ICANN. Our position on that has not changed. As the CCWG finalizes its proposals for enhancing ICANN’s accountability, we feel we should reiterate our view, as we stated last July, that ICANN preserve and clarify the current practice of the Board in responding to advice it receives from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Specifically, ICANN should amend its Bylaws to clarify that the Board is required to enter into a formal consultation process with the GAC only where it receives GAC advice that is consensus advice based on the current definition within the GAC’s Operating Principles, that is, advice to which no GAC member has raised a formal objection. ____
__ __
We want to make clear that nothing about this proposal is intended to limit how the GAC determines what advice it submits to the Board. As the Bylaws make clear, the Board is obligated to duly take all GAC advice into account. However, it is not practicable for the Board to give GAC advice special consideration unless it is consensus advice as currently defined in the GAC Operating Principles. Anything less than consensus places the Board in the awkward, if not impossible, position of trying to choose between governments with conflicting opinions. NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments. Accordingly, every time the GAC provides consensus advice that it expects to trigger the special Bylaws consideration from the Board, it must be unambiguous and consistent with the current definition in the Operating Principles. Asking the Board to interpret any other threshold of support seems counter to the spirit of the CCWG’s efforts to empower the community in a clear and consistent manner. It also undermines the work done to implement the relevant recommendations of ATRT1 to fix what the community diagnosed as a dysfunctional Board-GAC relationship.____
__ __
We are aware that some countries are concerned that the current GAC Operating Principles could lead to a single-country veto of GAC advice to the detriment of other countries. We too share that concern. But the right place to deal with that issue is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. NTIA stands ready to participate in and contribute to such a discussion to resolve that concern at the appropriate time and place. ____
*__ __*
*__ __*
*__ __*
/Suzanne Murray Radell____/
/Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA____/
/sradell@ntia.doc.gov <mailto:sradell@ntia.doc.gov>____/
/202-482-3167____/
__ __
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz>
/A better world through a better Internet /
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, As long as we do as we are told, i am sure we can achieve a result that is acceptable to NTIA. What is obvious to me now, is that not only did the NTIA want a solution that was not dominated by governments, a goal I strongly agree with, they also did not want a solution where the GAC stands with equal footing as a stakeholder, which makes me uneasy. But we can be thankful, at least we now know what we must do it we want approval. Before now there was ambiguity because as long as the solution did not give government primacy I thought we would be ok. Now I realize we can't even have equality. This is not disarray but well ordered. We had one serious issue pending and now that has been taken off the table. We can expect that GAC will not be able to approval of the accountability proposal as I expect that will be at least one more member of the GAC disappointed enough to formally object to the solution as constrained by NTIA. So as long as the solution is acceptable to all the SOs and to ALAC, while still be ok with the latest NTIA condition, we should be successful at reaching the end of the discussion. We also have a good indication of the power of NTIA over ICANN as a backstop for any who doubted that power. Anytime the US speaks, ICANN jumps. We should rejoice and be thankful as we have less to decide upon. avri On 26-Nov-15 04:01, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Jordan is right.
Mr Strickling, from the beginning, it seems to me has done two things, both of which were intended to be, and objectively are, helpful.
1. Clearly set out the criteria under which the NTIA will transfer the legal oversight it has historically asserted over ICANN under statutory power, to the private sector (i.e. to the global stakeholder community.
2. Occasionally provided the odd 'nudge' in 'the right direction'
No-one who has attended ICANN meetings or CCWG F2F should be in any doubt of the wishes of the USG in regards to certain important matters in the developing proposal.
And I made sure to read his blog posts in this regard, too.
This intervention is simply another, carefully written and diplomatic, clie that tells us what we (the CCWG) need to do to unlock the achievement of transition.
The Government of the United States is 'first among equals' in this discussion.
Its views have to be given a different weight, as Jordan correctly notes.
Some appear to recommend the CCWG resist.
Resistance would be futile.
It would also be foolish, I submit.
But then, so far as I can see, the accountability exercise appears to be in such disarray anyway, that even if you took the advice being proffered here, it's quite doubtful you are going to achieve an acceptable proposal withing the self-imposed time frames.
But maybe I'm missing something.
On 26/11/15 03:47, Jordan Carter wrote:
hi Arun,
I think you are eliding two things in an unfortunate way - the GAC decision-making process, and the fact of the United States using its leverage in the transition discussion. The fact that NTIA has set out requirements for the transition to occur, and sharing its view about ST18's importance in validating one of those requirements, is not a commentary on decision-making in GAC.
Or am I missing something?
best Jordan
On 26 November 2015 at 16:43, Arun Mohan Sukumar <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org <mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org>> wrote:
Thank you for posting NTIA's comment on this, Suzanne.
It is for GAC colleagues in the CCWG to weigh in on Assistant Secretary Strickling's note. What concerns me is the NTIA's effort to intervene at this crucial stage in ST 18 discussions. Frankly, it defeats the spirit of compromise that the CCWG has been striving for on this issue. The NTIA suggests GAC should not be worried about a "single country veto", when it is exercising precisely that during this important exercise.
Apologies for what may sound like harsh words: the CCWG is well attuned to attempts by one powerful stakeholder to steer the debate, and has so far resisted/responded to them admirably. One hopes this will be no exception.
Best, Arun
-- Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com <http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/> +91-9871943272 <tel:%2B91-9871943272>
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk <mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>> wrote:
Hello Suzanne,____
__ __
Thank you for the NTIA’s timely comments and suggestions.____
Regards,____
Phil____
__ __
Phil Buckingham____
CEO,Dot Advice Limited____
Email:phil@dotadvice.co.uk <mailto:Email%3Aphil@dotadvice.co.uk>____
Skype: philip.buckingham14____
Mobile: 00 44 (0)7957643357 <tel:00%2044%20%280%297957643357>____
LinkedIn: Phil Buckingham____
__ __
__ __
__ __
__ __
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Radell, Suzanne *Sent:* 25 November 2015 22:33 *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Cc:* ACCT-Staff *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18____
__ __
Hello everyone, Assistant Secretary Strickling has asked that I share this with the CCWG. Best regards, Suz____
__ __
*NTIA Statement on Stress Test 18____*
*November 25, 2015____*
*__ __*
NTIA has been closely following the discussions in the CCWG-Accountability, including the recently concluded small group on stress test 18. As has been the case throughout the work of the CCWG, we are impressed by the time and dedication so many of you are putting into these important discussions. We thank everyone for their efforts as the group works to finalize the proposal for publication on November 30. ____
__ __
NTIA has long believed that governments, like all stakeholders, have an important role to play within multistakeholder processes, including ICANN. Our position on that has not changed. As the CCWG finalizes its proposals for enhancing ICANN’s accountability, we feel we should reiterate our view, as we stated last July, that ICANN preserve and clarify the current practice of the Board in responding to advice it receives from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Specifically, ICANN should amend its Bylaws to clarify that the Board is required to enter into a formal consultation process with the GAC only where it receives GAC advice that is consensus advice based on the current definition within the GAC’s Operating Principles, that is, advice to which no GAC member has raised a formal objection. ____
__ __
We want to make clear that nothing about this proposal is intended to limit how the GAC determines what advice it submits to the Board. As the Bylaws make clear, the Board is obligated to duly take all GAC advice into account. However, it is not practicable for the Board to give GAC advice special consideration unless it is consensus advice as currently defined in the GAC Operating Principles. Anything less than consensus places the Board in the awkward, if not impossible, position of trying to choose between governments with conflicting opinions. NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments. Accordingly, every time the GAC provides consensus advice that it expects to trigger the special Bylaws consideration from the Board, it must be unambiguous and consistent with the current definition in the Operating Principles. Asking the Board to interpret any other threshold of support seems counter to the spirit of the CCWG’s efforts to empower the community in a clear and consistent manner. It also undermines the work done to implement the relevant recommendations of ATRT1 to fix what the community diagnosed as a dysfunctional Board-GAC relationship.____
__ __
We are aware that some countries are concerned that the current GAC Operating Principles could lead to a single-country veto of GAC advice to the detriment of other countries. We too share that concern. But the right place to deal with that issue is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. NTIA stands ready to participate in and contribute to such a discussion to resolve that concern at the appropriate time and place. ____
*__ __*
*__ __*
*__ __*
/Suzanne Murray Radell____/
/Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA____/
/sradell@ntia.doc.gov <mailto:sradell@ntia.doc.gov>____/
/202-482-3167____/
__ __
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz>
/A better world through a better Internet /
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
I don't agree that the NTIA statement makes GAC or governments less equal as a stakeholder. It is the GAC's special bylaw power to have its advice impose special requirements on the board that makes the GAC "first among equals". And those are the GAC's own words. To have less than full consensus for the special advising power is to make the GAC more than equal and to further empower it within ICANN in a way that is unacceptable to most non state actors, to Congress as well as the NTIA. The GAC has already been strengthened by becoming a voting member of the community mechanism. It is always been unreasonable for it to get this additional power and also ask for relaxed thresholds for its advice. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology
On Nov 26, 2015, at 05:15, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
As long as we do as we are told, i am sure we can achieve a result that is acceptable to NTIA.
What is obvious to me now, is that not only did the NTIA want a solution that was not dominated by governments, a goal I strongly agree with, they also did not want a solution where the GAC stands with equal footing as a stakeholder, which makes me uneasy.
But we can be thankful, at least we now know what we must do it we want approval. Before now there was ambiguity because as long as the solution did not give government primacy I thought we would be ok. Now I realize we can't even have equality.
This is not disarray but well ordered. We had one serious issue pending and now that has been taken off the table. We can expect that GAC will not be able to approval of the accountability proposal as I expect that will be at least one more member of the GAC disappointed enough to formally object to the solution as constrained by NTIA. So as long as the solution is acceptable to all the SOs and to ALAC, while still be ok with the latest NTIA condition, we should be successful at reaching the end of the discussion.
We also have a good indication of the power of NTIA over ICANN as a backstop for any who doubted that power. Anytime the US speaks, ICANN jumps.
We should rejoice and be thankful as we have less to decide upon.
avri
On 26-Nov-15 04:01, Nigel Roberts wrote: Jordan is right.
Mr Strickling, from the beginning, it seems to me has done two things, both of which were intended to be, and objectively are, helpful.
1. Clearly set out the criteria under which the NTIA will transfer the legal oversight it has historically asserted over ICANN under statutory power, to the private sector (i.e. to the global stakeholder community.
2. Occasionally provided the odd 'nudge' in 'the right direction'
No-one who has attended ICANN meetings or CCWG F2F should be in any doubt of the wishes of the USG in regards to certain important matters in the developing proposal.
And I made sure to read his blog posts in this regard, too.
This intervention is simply another, carefully written and diplomatic, clie that tells us what we (the CCWG) need to do to unlock the achievement of transition.
The Government of the United States is 'first among equals' in this discussion.
Its views have to be given a different weight, as Jordan correctly notes.
Some appear to recommend the CCWG resist.
Resistance would be futile.
It would also be foolish, I submit.
But then, so far as I can see, the accountability exercise appears to be in such disarray anyway, that even if you took the advice being proffered here, it's quite doubtful you are going to achieve an acceptable proposal withing the self-imposed time frames.
But maybe I'm missing something.
On 26/11/15 03:47, Jordan Carter wrote: hi Arun,
I think you are eliding two things in an unfortunate way - the GAC decision-making process, and the fact of the United States using its leverage in the transition discussion. The fact that NTIA has set out requirements for the transition to occur, and sharing its view about ST18's importance in validating one of those requirements, is not a commentary on decision-making in GAC.
Or am I missing something?
best Jordan
On 26 November 2015 at 16:43, Arun Mohan Sukumar <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org <mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org>> wrote:
Thank you for posting NTIA's comment on this, Suzanne.
It is for GAC colleagues in the CCWG to weigh in on Assistant Secretary Strickling's note. What concerns me is the NTIA's effort to intervene at this crucial stage in ST 18 discussions. Frankly, it defeats the spirit of compromise that the CCWG has been striving for on this issue. The NTIA suggests GAC should not be worried about a "single country veto", when it is exercising precisely that during this important exercise.
Apologies for what may sound like harsh words: the CCWG is well attuned to attempts by one powerful stakeholder to steer the debate, and has so far resisted/responded to them admirably. One hopes this will be no exception.
Best, Arun
-- Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com <http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/> +91-9871943272 <tel:%2B91-9871943272>
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk <mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>> wrote:
Hello Suzanne,____
__ __
Thank you for the NTIA’s timely comments and suggestions.____
Regards,____
Phil____
__ __
Phil Buckingham____
CEO,Dot Advice Limited____
Email:phil@dotadvice.co.uk <mailto:Email%3Aphil@dotadvice.co.uk>____
Skype: philip.buckingham14____
Mobile: 00 44 (0)7957643357 <tel:00%2044%20%280%297957643357>____
LinkedIn: Phil Buckingham____
__ __
__ __
__ __
__ __
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Radell, Suzanne *Sent:* 25 November 2015 22:33 *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Cc:* ACCT-Staff *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18____
__ __
Hello everyone, Assistant Secretary Strickling has asked that I share this with the CCWG. Best regards, Suz____
__ __
*NTIA Statement on Stress Test 18____*
*November 25, 2015____*
*__ __*
NTIA has been closely following the discussions in the CCWG-Accountability, including the recently concluded small group on stress test 18. As has been the case throughout the work of the CCWG, we are impressed by the time and dedication so many of you are putting into these important discussions. We thank everyone for their efforts as the group works to finalize the proposal for publication on November 30. ____
__ __
NTIA has long believed that governments, like all stakeholders, have an important role to play within multistakeholder processes, including ICANN. Our position on that has not changed. As the CCWG finalizes its proposals for enhancing ICANN’s accountability, we feel we should reiterate our view, as we stated last July, that ICANN preserve and clarify the current practice of the Board in responding to advice it receives from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Specifically, ICANN should amend its Bylaws to clarify that the Board is required to enter into a formal consultation process with the GAC only where it receives GAC advice that is consensus advice based on the current definition within the GAC’s Operating Principles, that is, advice to which no GAC member has raised a formal objection. ____
__ __
We want to make clear that nothing about this proposal is intended to limit how the GAC determines what advice it submits to the Board. As the Bylaws make clear, the Board is obligated to duly take all GAC advice into account. However, it is not practicable for the Board to give GAC advice special consideration unless it is consensus advice as currently defined in the GAC Operating Principles. Anything less than consensus places the Board in the awkward, if not impossible, position of trying to choose between governments with conflicting opinions. NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments. Accordingly, every time the GAC provides consensus advice that it expects to trigger the special Bylaws consideration from the Board, it must be unambiguous and consistent with the current definition in the Operating Principles. Asking the Board to interpret any other threshold of support seems counter to the spirit of the CCWG’s efforts to empower the community in a clear and consistent manner. It also undermines the work done to implement the relevant recommendations of ATRT1 to fix what the community diagnosed as a dysfunctional Board-GAC relationship.____
__ __
We are aware that some countries are concerned that the current GAC Operating Principles could lead to a single-country veto of GAC advice to the detriment of other countries. We too share that concern. But the right place to deal with that issue is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. NTIA stands ready to participate in and contribute to such a discussion to resolve that concern at the appropriate time and place. ____
*__ __*
*__ __*
*__ __*
/Suzanne Murray Radell____/
/Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA____/
/sradell@ntia.doc.gov <mailto:sradell@ntia.doc.gov>____/
/202-482-3167____/
__ __
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz>
/A better world through a better Internet /
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
The GAC's "special bylaw powers" have been justified, although certainly not to my satisfaction, by government's special role in determining the "public interest". Once the GAC deviates from full consensus the justification for it to have a privileged position is dissipated. The "public interest" is or isn't. I certainly hope we don't intend to put the Board in the unenviable position of having to determine which particular government's view of "public interest" is the correct one. Yet some of the proposals before us do exactly that. Ed Morris ---------------------------------------- From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 1:09 PM To: "avri@acm.org" <avri@acm.org> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18 I don't agree that the NTIA statement makes GAC or governments less equal as a stakeholder. It is the GAC's special bylaw power to have its advice impose special requirements on the board that makes the GAC "first among equals". And those are the GAC's own words. To have less than full consensus for the special advising power is to make the GAC more than equal and to further empower it within ICANN in a way that is unacceptable to most non state actors, to Congress as well as the NTIA. The GAC has already been strengthened by becoming a voting member of the community mechanism. It is always been unreasonable for it to get this additional power and also ask for relaxed thresholds for its advice. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology
On Nov 26, 2015, at 05:15, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
As long as we do as we are told, i am sure we can achieve a result that is acceptable to NTIA.
What is obvious to me now, is that not only did the NTIA want a solution that was not dominated by governments, a goal I strongly agree with, they also did not want a solution where the GAC stands with equal footing as a stakeholder, which makes me uneasy.
But we can be thankful, at least we now know what we must do it we want approval. Before now there was ambiguity because as long as the solution did not give government primacy I thought we would be ok. Now I realize we can't even have equality.
This is not disarray but well ordered. We had one serious issue pending and now that has been taken off the table. We can expect that GAC will not be able to approval of the accountability proposal as I expect that will be at least one more member of the GAC disappointed enough to formally object to the solution as constrained by NTIA. So as long as the solution is acceptable to all the SOs and to ALAC, while still be ok with the latest NTIA condition, we should be successful at reaching the end of the discussion.
We also have a good indication of the power of NTIA over ICANN as a backstop for any who doubted that power. Anytime the US speaks, ICANN jumps.
We should rejoice and be thankful as we have less to decide upon.
avri
On 26-Nov-15 04:01, Nigel Roberts wrote: Jordan is right.
Mr Strickling, from the beginning, it seems to me has done two things, both of which were intended to be, and objectively are, helpful.
1. Clearly set out the criteria under which the NTIA will transfer the legal oversight it has historically asserted over ICANN under statutory power, to the private sector (i.e. to the global stakeholder community.
2. Occasionally provided the odd 'nudge' in 'the right direction'
No-one who has attended ICANN meetings or CCWG F2F should be in any doubt of the wishes of the USG in regards to certain important matters in the developing proposal.
And I made sure to read his blog posts in this regard, too.
This intervention is simply another, carefully written and diplomatic, clie that tells us what we (the CCWG) need to do to unlock the achievement of transition.
The Government of the United States is 'first among equals' in this discussion.
Its views have to be given a different weight, as Jordan correctly notes.
Some appear to recommend the CCWG resist.
Resistance would be futile.
It would also be foolish, I submit.
But then, so far as I can see, the accountability exercise appears to be in such disarray anyway, that even if you took the advice being proffered here, it's quite doubtful you are going to achieve an acceptable proposal withing the self-imposed time frames.
But maybe I'm missing something.
On 26/11/15 03:47, Jordan Carter wrote: hi Arun,
I think you are eliding two things in an unfortunate way - the GAC decision-making process, and the fact of the United States using its leverage in the transition discussion. The fact that NTIA has set out requirements for the transition to occur, and sharing its view about ST18's importance in validating one of those requirements, is not a commentary on decision-making in GAC.
Or am I missing something?
best Jordan
On 26 November 2015 at 16:43, Arun Mohan Sukumar <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org <mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org>> wrote:
Thank you for posting NTIA's comment on this, Suzanne.
It is for GAC colleagues in the CCWG to weigh in on Assistant Secretary Strickling's note. What concerns me is the NTIA's effort to intervene at this crucial stage in ST 18 discussions. Frankly, it defeats the spirit of compromise that the CCWG has been striving for on this issue. The NTIA suggests GAC should not be worried about a "single country veto", when it is exercising precisely that during this important exercise.
Apologies for what may sound like harsh words: the CCWG is well attuned to attempts by one powerful stakeholder to steer the debate, and has so far resisted/responded to them admirably. One hopes this will be no exception.
Best, Arun
-- Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com <http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/> +91-9871943272 <tel:%2B91-9871943272>
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk <mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>> wrote:
Hello Suzanne,____
__ __
Thank you for the NTIA's timely comments and suggestions.____
Regards,____
Phil____
__ __
Phil Buckingham____
CEO,Dot Advice Limited____
Email:phil@dotadvice.co.uk <mailto:Email%3Aphil@dotadvice.co.uk>____
Skype: philip.buckingham14____
Mobile: 00 44 (0)7957643357 <tel:00%2044%20%280%297957643357>____
LinkedIn: Phil Buckingham____
__ __
__ __
__ __
__ __
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Radell, Suzanne *Sent:* 25 November 2015 22:33 *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Cc:* ACCT-Staff *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18____
__ __
Hello everyone, Assistant Secretary Strickling has asked that I share this with the CCWG. Best regards, Suz____
__ __
*NTIA Statement on Stress Test 18____*
*November 25, 2015____*
*__ __*
NTIA has been closely following the discussions in the CCWG-Accountability, including the recently concluded small group on stress test 18. As has been the case throughout the work of the CCWG, we are impressed by the time and dedication so many of you are putting into these important discussions. We thank everyone for their efforts as the group works to finalize the proposal for publication on November 30. ____
__ __
NTIA has long believed that governments, like all stakeholders, have an important role to play within multistakeholder processes, including ICANN. Our position on that has not changed. As the CCWG finalizes its proposals for enhancing ICANN's accountability, we feel we should reiterate our view, as we stated last July, that ICANN preserve and clarify the current practice of the Board in responding to advice it receives from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Specifically, ICANN should amend its Bylaws to clarify that the Board is required to enter into a formal consultation process with the GAC only where it receives GAC advice that is consensus advice based on the current definition within the GAC's Operating Principles, that is, advice to which no GAC member has raised a formal objection. ____
__ __
We want to make clear that nothing about this proposal is intended to limit how the GAC determines what advice it submits to the Board. As the Bylaws make clear, the Board is obligated to duly take all GAC advice into account. However, it is not practicable for the Board to give GAC advice special consideration unless it is consensus advice as currently defined in the GAC Operating Principles. Anything less than consensus places the Board in the awkward, if not impossible, position of trying to choose between governments with conflicting opinions. NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments. Accordingly, every time the GAC provides consensus advice that it expects to trigger the special Bylaws consideration from the Board, it must be unambiguous and consistent with the current definition in the Operating Principles. Asking the Board to interpret any other threshold of support seems counter to the spirit of the CCWG's efforts to empower the community in a clear and consistent manner. It also undermines the work done to implement the relevant recommendations of ATRT1 to fix what the community diagnosed as a dysfunctional Board-GAC relationship.____
__ __
We are aware that some countries are concerned that the current GAC Operating Principles could lead to a single-country veto of GAC advice to the detriment of other countries. We too share that concern. But the right place to deal with that issue is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. NTIA stands ready to participate in and contribute to such a discussion to resolve that concern at the appropriate time and place. ____
*__ __*
*__ __*
*__ __*
/Suzanne Murray Radell____/
/Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA____/
/sradell@ntia.doc.gov <mailto:sradell@ntia.doc.gov>____/
/202-482-3167____/
__ __
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz>
/A better world through a better Internet /
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
I agree the NTIA statement gives us clarity, but let's all be clear this is not *new* input. As stated in the text, this view has been communicated previously by NTIA on several occasions. On substance, the ST18 points considered by the GAC in Dublin and reported in its communique could still be recognized and upheld through bylaws changes that do not conflict with NTIA's reiterated expectations on ST18. While any GAC advice requiring special consideration by the Board would require consensus as currently defined (without formal objection), the GAC still has autonomy to refine its operating principles to specify how objections are raised and considered (for example, disallowing a single country to continue an objection on the same issue if no other countries will join in the objection). As I understand it, this has already been discussed within the GAC and is still on the table. The GAC still has control over its own operating procedures and that should be recognized and respected. Regards, Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Edward Morris Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 8:29 AM To: Mueller, Milton L; avri@acm.org Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18 The GAC's "special bylaw powers" have been justified, although certainly not to my satisfaction, by government's special role in determining the "public interest". Once the GAC deviates from full consensus the justification for it to have a privileged position is dissipated. The "public interest" is or isn't. I certainly hope we don't intend to put the Board in the unenviable position of having to determine which particular government's view of "public interest" is the correct one. Yet some of the proposals before us do exactly that. Ed Morris ________________________________ From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 1:09 PM To: "avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>" <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18 I don't agree that the NTIA statement makes GAC or governments less equal as a stakeholder. It is the GAC's special bylaw power to have its advice impose special requirements on the board that makes the GAC "first among equals". And those are the GAC's own words. To have less than full consensus for the special advising power is to make the GAC more than equal and to further empower it within ICANN in a way that is unacceptable to most non state actors, to Congress as well as the NTIA. The GAC has already been strengthened by becoming a voting member of the community mechanism. It is always been unreasonable for it to get this additional power and also ask for relaxed thresholds for its advice. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology
On Nov 26, 2015, at 05:15, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
As long as we do as we are told, i am sure we can achieve a result that is acceptable to NTIA.
What is obvious to me now, is that not only did the NTIA want a solution that was not dominated by governments, a goal I strongly agree with, they also did not want a solution where the GAC stands with equal footing as a stakeholder, which makes me uneasy.
But we can be thankful, at least we now know what we must do it we want approval. Before now there was ambiguity because as long as the solution did not give government primacy I thought we would be ok. Now I realize we can't even have equality.
This is not disarray but well ordered. We had one serious issue pending and now that has been taken off the table. We can expect that GAC will not be able to approval of the accountability proposal as I expect that will be at least one more member of the GAC disappointed enough to formally object to the solution as constrained by NTIA. So as long as the solution is acceptable to all the SOs and to ALAC, while still be ok with the latest NTIA condition, we should be successful at reaching the end of the discussion.
We also have a good indication of the power of NTIA over ICANN as a backstop for any who doubted that power. Anytime the US speaks, ICANN jumps.
We should rejoice and be thankful as we have less to decide upon.
avri
On 26-Nov-15 04:01, Nigel Roberts wrote: Jordan is right.
Mr Strickling, from the beginning, it seems to me has done two things, both of which were intended to be, and objectively are, helpful.
1. Clearly set out the criteria under which the NTIA will transfer the legal oversight it has historically asserted over ICANN under statutory power, to the private sector (i.e. to the global stakeholder community.
2. Occasionally provided the odd 'nudge' in 'the right direction'
No-one who has attended ICANN meetings or CCWG F2F should be in any doubt of the wishes of the USG in regards to certain important matters in the developing proposal.
And I made sure to read his blog posts in this regard, too.
This intervention is simply another, carefully written and diplomatic, clie that tells us what we (the CCWG) need to do to unlock the achievement of transition.
The Government of the United States is 'first among equals' in this discussion.
Its views have to be given a different weight, as Jordan correctly notes.
Some appear to recommend the CCWG resist.
Resistance would be futile.
It would also be foolish, I submit.
But then, so far as I can see, the accountability exercise appears to be in such disarray anyway, that even if you took the advice being proffered here, it's quite doubtful you are going to achieve an acceptable proposal withing the self-imposed time frames.
But maybe I'm missing something.
On 26/11/15 03:47, Jordan Carter wrote: hi Arun,
I think you are eliding two things in an unfortunate way - the GAC decision-making process, and the fact of the United States using its leverage in the transition discussion. The fact that NTIA has set out requirements for the transition to occur, and sharing its view about ST18's importance in validating one of those requirements, is not a commentary on decision-making in GAC.
Or am I missing something?
best Jordan
On 26 November 2015 at 16:43, Arun Mohan Sukumar <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org <mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org<mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org%20%3cmailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org>>> wrote:
Thank you for posting NTIA's comment on this, Suzanne.
It is for GAC colleagues in the CCWG to weigh in on Assistant Secretary Strickling's note. What concerns me is the NTIA's effort to intervene at this crucial stage in ST 18 discussions. Frankly, it defeats the spirit of compromise that the CCWG has been striving for on this issue. The NTIA suggests GAC should not be worried about a "single country veto", when it is exercising precisely that during this important exercise.
Apologies for what may sound like harsh words: the CCWG is well attuned to attempts by one powerful stakeholder to steer the debate, and has so far resisted/responded to them admirably. One hopes this will be no exception.
Best, Arun
-- Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com <http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/> +91-9871943272 <tel:%2B91-9871943272>
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk <mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk%20%3cmailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>>> wrote:
Hello Suzanne,____
__ __
Thank you for the NTIA's timely comments and suggestions.____
Regards,____
Phil____
__ __
Phil Buckingham____
CEO,Dot Advice Limited____
Email:phil@dotadvice.co.uk <mailto:Email%3Aphil@dotadvice.co.uk>____
Skype: philip.buckingham14____
Mobile: 00 44 (0)7957643357 <tel:00%2044%20%280%297957643357>____
LinkedIn: Phil Buckingham____
__ __
__ __
__ __
__ __
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%0b%3e%3e%3e%20%3cmailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] *On Behalf Of *Radell, Suzanne *Sent:* 25 November 2015 22:33 *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Cc:* ACCT-Staff *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18____
__ __
Hello everyone, Assistant Secretary Strickling has asked that I share this with the CCWG. Best regards, Suz____
__ __
*NTIA Statement on Stress Test 18____*
*November 25, 2015____*
*__ __*
NTIA has been closely following the discussions in the CCWG-Accountability, including the recently concluded small group on stress test 18. As has been the case throughout the work of the CCWG, we are impressed by the time and dedication so many of you are putting into these important discussions. We thank everyone for their efforts as the group works to finalize the proposal for publication on November 30. ____
__ __
NTIA has long believed that governments, like all stakeholders, have an important role to play within multistakeholder processes, including ICANN. Our position on that has not changed. As the CCWG finalizes its proposals for enhancing ICANN's accountability, we feel we should reiterate our view, as we stated last July, that ICANN preserve and clarify the current practice of the Board in responding to advice it receives from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Specifically, ICANN should amend its Bylaws to clarify that the Board is required to enter into a formal consultation process with the GAC only where it receives GAC advice that is consensus advice based on the current definition within the GAC's Operating Principles, that is, advice to which no GAC member has raised a formal objection. ____
__ __
We want to make clear that nothing about this proposal is intended to limit how the GAC determines what advice it submits to the Board. As the Bylaws make clear, the Board is obligated to duly take all GAC advice into account. However, it is not practicable for the Board to give GAC advice special consideration unless it is consensus advice as currently defined in the GAC Operating Principles. Anything less than consensus places the Board in the awkward, if not impossible, position of trying to choose between governments with conflicting opinions. NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments. Accordingly, every time the GAC provides consensus advice that it expects to trigger the special Bylaws consideration from the Board, it must be unambiguous and consistent with the current definition in the Operating Principles. Asking the Board to interpret any other threshold of support seems counter to the spirit of the CCWG's efforts to empower the community in a clear and consistent manner. It also undermines the work done to implement the relevant recommendations of ATRT1 to fix what the community diagnosed as a dysfunctional Board-GAC relationship.____
__ __
We are aware that some countries are concerned that the current GAC Operating Principles could lead to a single-country veto of GAC advice to the detriment of other countries. We too share that concern. But the right place to deal with that issue is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. NTIA stands ready to participate in and contribute to such a discussion to resolve that concern at the appropriate time and place. ____
*__ __*
*__ __*
*__ __*
/Suzanne Murray Radell____/
/Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA____/
/sradell@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:/sradell@ntia.doc.gov> <mailto:sradell@ntia.doc.gov>____/
/202-482-3167____/
__ __
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto: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> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz<http://www.internetnz.nz> <http://www.internetnz.nz>
/A better world through a better Internet /
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
There are SOs and there are AC's, with ALAC apparently being a wannabe SO (if they could remember what they agreed to yesterday or the week before). The GAC is an AC focusing on Public Policy advice. It can prove Public Policy advice as much as they want and the Board will always consider it. If they provide Public Policy advice backed by consensus (as CURRENTLY defined AND to be enshrined into the Bylaws) the Board will still consider it, but it must give it special attention. So far the GAC has managed to achieve consensus on many things and even found ways around a few governments being opposed in certain cases. And wether this is binding mandatorily or not, if the Board accepts the advice it accepts it. And if the GAC or another SO/AC does not like the conditions the NTIA sets, or,the outcome of the CCWG Accountability, it can reject the proposal. So what? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 26 Nov 2015, at 15:28, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
The GAC's "special bylaw powers" have been justified, although certainly not to my satisfaction, by government's special role in determining the "public interest". Once the GAC deviates from full consensus the justification for it to have a privileged position is dissipated. The "public interest" is or isn't. I certainly hope we don't intend to put the Board in the unenviable position of having to determine which particular government's view of "public interest" is the correct one. Yet some of the proposals before us do exactly that.
Ed Morris
From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 1:09 PM To: "avri@acm.org" <avri@acm.org> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18
I don't agree that the NTIA statement makes GAC or governments less equal as a stakeholder. It is the GAC's special bylaw power to have its advice impose special requirements on the board that makes the GAC "first among equals". And those are the GAC's own words. To have less than full consensus for the special advising power is to make the GAC more than equal and to further empower it within ICANN in a way that is unacceptable to most non state actors, to Congress as well as the NTIA. The GAC has already been strengthened by becoming a voting member of the community mechanism. It is always been unreasonable for it to get this additional power and also ask for relaxed thresholds for its advice.
Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology
On Nov 26, 2015, at 05:15, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
As long as we do as we are told, i am sure we can achieve a result that is acceptable to NTIA.
What is obvious to me now, is that not only did the NTIA want a solution that was not dominated by governments, a goal I strongly agree with, they also did not want a solution where the GAC stands with equal footing as a stakeholder, which makes me uneasy.
But we can be thankful, at least we now know what we must do it we want approval. Before now there was ambiguity because as long as the solution did not give government primacy I thought we would be ok. Now I realize we can't even have equality.
This is not disarray but well ordered. We had one serious issue pending and now that has been taken off the table. We can expect that GAC will not be able to approval of the accountability proposal as I expect that will be at least one more member of the GAC disappointed enough to formally object to the solution as constrained by NTIA. So as long as the solution is acceptable to all the SOs and to ALAC, while still be ok with the latest NTIA condition, we should be successful at reaching the end of the discussion.
We also have a good indication of the power of NTIA over ICANN as a backstop for any who doubted that power. Anytime the US speaks, ICANN jumps.
We should rejoice and be thankful as we have less to decide upon.
avri
On 26-Nov-15 04:01, Nigel Roberts wrote: Jordan is right.
Mr Strickling, from the beginning, it seems to me has done two things, both of which were intended to be, and objectively are, helpful.
1. Clearly set out the criteria under which the NTIA will transfer the legal oversight it has historically asserted over ICANN under statutory power, to the private sector (i.e. to the global stakeholder community.
2. Occasionally provided the odd 'nudge' in 'the right direction'
No-one who has attended ICANN meetings or CCWG F2F should be in any doubt of the wishes of the USG in regards to certain important matters in the developing proposal.
And I made sure to read his blog posts in this regard, too.
This intervention is simply another, carefully written and diplomatic, clie that tells us what we (the CCWG) need to do to unlock the achievement of transition.
The Government of the United States is 'first among equals' in this discussion.
Its views have to be given a different weight, as Jordan correctly notes.
Some appear to recommend the CCWG resist.
Resistance would be futile.
It would also be foolish, I submit.
But then, so far as I can see, the accountability exercise appears to be in such disarray anyway, that even if you took the advice being proffered here, it's quite doubtful you are going to achieve an acceptable proposal withing the self-imposed time frames.
But maybe I'm missing something.
On 26/11/15 03:47, Jordan Carter wrote: hi Arun,
I think you are eliding two things in an unfortunate way - the GAC decision-making process, and the fact of the United States using its leverage in the transition discussion. The fact that NTIA has set out requirements for the transition to occur, and sharing its view about ST18's importance in validating one of those requirements, is not a commentary on decision-making in GAC.
Or am I missing something?
best Jordan
On 26 November 2015 at 16:43, Arun Mohan Sukumar <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org <mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org>> wrote:
Thank you for posting NTIA's comment on this, Suzanne.
It is for GAC colleagues in the CCWG to weigh in on Assistant Secretary Strickling's note. What concerns me is the NTIA's effort to intervene at this crucial stage in ST 18 discussions. Frankly, it defeats the spirit of compromise that the CCWG has been striving for on this issue. The NTIA suggests GAC should not be worried about a "single country veto", when it is exercising precisely that during this important exercise.
Apologies for what may sound like harsh words: the CCWG is well attuned to attempts by one powerful stakeholder to steer the debate, and has so far resisted/responded to them admirably. One hopes this will be no exception.
Best, Arun
-- Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com <http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/> +91-9871943272 <tel:%2B91-9871943272>
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk <mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>> wrote:
Hello Suzanne,____
__ __
Thank you for the NTIA’s timely comments and suggestions.____
Regards,____
Phil____
__ __
Phil Buckingham____
CEO,Dot Advice Limited____
Email:phil@dotadvice.co.uk <mailto:Email%3Aphil@dotadvice.co.uk>____
Skype: philip.buckingham14____
Mobile: 00 44 (0)7957643357 <tel:00%2044%20%280%297957643357>____
LinkedIn: Phil Buckingham____
__ __
__ __
__ __
__ __
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Radell, Suzanne *Sent:* 25 November 2015 22:33 *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Cc:* ACCT-Staff *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18____
__ __
Hello everyone, Assistant Secretary Strickling has asked that I share this with the CCWG. Best regards, Suz____
__ __
*NTIA Statement on Stress Test 18____*
*November 25, 2015____*
*__ __*
NTIA has been closely following the discussions in the CCWG-Accountability, including the recently concluded small group on stress test 18. As has been the case throughout the work of the CCWG, we are impressed by the time and dedication so many of you are putting into these important discussions. We thank everyone for their efforts as the group works to finalize the proposal for publication on November 30. ____
__ __
NTIA has long believed that governments, like all stakeholders, have an important role to play within multistakeholder processes, including ICANN. Our position on that has not changed. As the CCWG finalizes its proposals for enhancing ICANN’s accountability, we feel we should reiterate our view, as we stated last July, that ICANN preserve and clarify the current practice of the Board in responding to advice it receives from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Specifically, ICANN should amend its Bylaws to clarify that the Board is required to enter into a formal consultation process with the GAC only where it receives GAC advice that is consensus advice based on the current definition within the GAC’s Operating Principles, that is, advice to which no GAC member has raised a formal objection. ____
__ __
We want to make clear that nothing about this proposal is intended to limit how the GAC determines what advice it submits to the Board. As the Bylaws make clear, the Board is obligated to duly take all GAC advice into account. However, it is not practicable for the Board to give GAC advice special consideration unless it is consensus advice as currently defined in the GAC Operating Principles. Anything less than consensus places the Board in the awkward, if not impossible, position of trying to choose between governments with conflicting opinions. NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments. Accordingly, every time the GAC provides consensus advice that it expects to trigger the special Bylaws consideration from the Board, it must be unambiguous and consistent with the current definition in the Operating Principles. Asking the Board to interpret any other threshold of support seems counter to the spirit of the CCWG’s efforts to empower the community in a clear and consistent manner. It also undermines the work done to implement the relevant recommendations of ATRT1 to fix what the community diagnosed as a dysfunctional Board-GAC relationship.____
__ __
We are aware that some countries are concerned that the current GAC Operating Principles could lead to a single-country veto of GAC advice to the detriment of other countries. We too share that concern. But the right place to deal with that issue is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. NTIA stands ready to participate in and contribute to such a discussion to resolve that concern at the appropriate time and place. ____
*__ __*
*__ __*
*__ __*
/Suzanne Murray Radell____/
/Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA____/
/sradell@ntia.doc.gov <mailto:sradell@ntia.doc.gov>____/
/202-482-3167____/
__ __
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz>
/A better world through a better Internet /
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
I agree with Milton. And this has nothing to do with the standing up and resisting anything. The NTIA is not opposing a decision of the community. As our co-Chairs have stated no consensus has been reached on a position that would be at odds with NTIA's statement. There is not a "strong" choice and a "weak" choice. But it would be knee-jerk reaction, bordering on irrational, to say that because NTIA has taken a position, we need to oppose it. Greg On Thursday, November 26, 2015, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
The GAC's "special bylaw powers" have been justified, although certainly not to my satisfaction, by government's special role in determining the "public interest". Once the GAC deviates from full consensus the justification for it to have a privileged position is dissipated. The "public interest" is or isn't. I certainly hope we don't intend to put the Board in the unenviable position of having to determine which particular government's view of "public interest" is the correct one. Yet some of the proposals before us do exactly that.
Ed Morris
------------------------------ *From*: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','milton@gatech.edu');>> *Sent*: Thursday, November 26, 2015 1:09 PM *To*: "avri@acm.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri@acm.org');>" < avri@acm.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri@acm.org');>> *Cc*: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');>
*Subject*: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18
I don't agree that the NTIA statement makes GAC or governments less equal as a stakeholder. It is the GAC's special bylaw power to have its advice impose special requirements on the board that makes the GAC "first among equals". And those are the GAC's own words. To have less than full consensus for the special advising power is to make the GAC more than equal and to further empower it within ICANN in a way that is unacceptable to most non state actors, to Congress as well as the NTIA. The GAC has already been strengthened by becoming a voting member of the community mechanism. It is always been unreasonable for it to get this additional power and also ask for relaxed thresholds for its advice.
Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology
On Nov 26, 2015, at 05:15, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri@acm.org');>> wrote:
Hi,
As long as we do as we are told, i am sure we can achieve a result that is acceptable to NTIA.
What is obvious to me now, is that not only did the NTIA want a solution that was not dominated by governments, a goal I strongly agree with, they also did not want a solution where the GAC stands with equal footing as a stakeholder, which makes me uneasy.
But we can be thankful, at least we now know what we must do it we want approval. Before now there was ambiguity because as long as the solution did not give government primacy I thought we would be ok. Now I realize we can't even have equality.
This is not disarray but well ordered. We had one serious issue pending and now that has been taken off the table. We can expect that GAC will not be able to approval of the accountability proposal as I expect that will be at least one more member of the GAC disappointed enough to formally object to the solution as constrained by NTIA. So as long as the solution is acceptable to all the SOs and to ALAC, while still be ok with the latest NTIA condition, we should be successful at reaching the end of the discussion.
We also have a good indication of the power of NTIA over ICANN as a backstop for any who doubted that power. Anytime the US speaks, ICANN jumps.
We should rejoice and be thankful as we have less to decide upon.
avri
On 26-Nov-15 04:01, Nigel Roberts wrote: Jordan is right.
Mr Strickling, from the beginning, it seems to me has done two things, both of which were intended to be, and objectively are, helpful.
1. Clearly set out the criteria under which the NTIA will transfer the legal oversight it has historically asserted over ICANN under statutory power, to the private sector (i.e. to the global stakeholder community.
2. Occasionally provided the odd 'nudge' in 'the right direction'
No-one who has attended ICANN meetings or CCWG F2F should be in any doubt of the wishes of the USG in regards to certain important matters in the developing proposal.
And I made sure to read his blog posts in this regard, too.
This intervention is simply another, carefully written and diplomatic, clie that tells us what we (the CCWG) need to do to unlock the achievement of transition.
The Government of the United States is 'first among equals' in this discussion.
Its views have to be given a different weight, as Jordan correctly notes.
Some appear to recommend the CCWG resist.
Resistance would be futile.
It would also be foolish, I submit.
But then, so far as I can see, the accountability exercise appears to be in such disarray anyway, that even if you took the advice being proffered here, it's quite doubtful you are going to achieve an acceptable proposal withing the self-imposed time frames.
But maybe I'm missing something.
On 26/11/15 03:47, Jordan Carter wrote: hi Arun,
I think you are eliding two things in an unfortunate way - the GAC decision-making process, and the fact of the United States using its leverage in the transition discussion. The fact that NTIA has set out requirements for the transition to occur, and sharing its view about ST18's importance in validating one of those requirements, is not a commentary on decision-making in GAC.
Or am I missing something?
best Jordan
On 26 November 2015 at 16:43, Arun Mohan Sukumar <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','arun.sukumar@orfonline.org');> <mailto: arun.sukumar@orfonline.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','arun.sukumar@orfonline.org');>>> wrote:
Thank you for posting NTIA's comment on this, Suzanne.
It is for GAC colleagues in the CCWG to weigh in on Assistant Secretary Strickling's note. What concerns me is the NTIA's effort to intervene at this crucial stage in ST 18 discussions. Frankly, it defeats the spirit of compromise that the CCWG has been striving for on this issue. The NTIA suggests GAC should not be worried about a "single country veto", when it is exercising precisely that during this important exercise.
Apologies for what may sound like harsh words: the CCWG is well attuned to attempts by one powerful stakeholder to steer the debate, and has so far resisted/responded to them admirably. One hopes this will be no exception.
Best, Arun
-- Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com <http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/> +91-9871943272 <tel:%2B91-9871943272>
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','phil@dotadvice.co.uk');> <mailto: phil@dotadvice.co.uk <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','phil@dotadvice.co.uk');>>> wrote:
Hello Suzanne,____
__ __
Thank you for the NTIA’s timely comments and suggestions.____
Regards,____
Phil____
__ __
Phil Buckingham____
CEO,Dot Advice Limited____
Email:phil@dotadvice.co.uk <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Email:phil@dotadvice.co.uk');> <mailto:Email%3Aphil@dotadvice.co.uk <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Email%253Aphil@dotadvice.co.uk');>>____
Skype: philip.buckingham14____
Mobile: 00 44 (0)7957643357 <tel:00%2044%20%280%297957643357>____
LinkedIn: Phil Buckingham____
__ __
__ __
__ __
__ __
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');>>] *On Behalf Of *Radell, Suzanne *Sent:* 25 November 2015 22:33 *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Cc:* ACCT-Staff *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18____
__ __
Hello everyone, Assistant Secretary Strickling has asked that I share this with the CCWG. Best regards, Suz____
__ __
*NTIA Statement on Stress Test 18____*
*November 25, 2015____*
*__ __*
NTIA has been closely following the discussions in the CCWG-Accountability, including the recently concluded small group on stress test 18. As has been the case throughout the work of the CCWG, we are impressed by the time and dedication so many of you are putting into these important discussions. We thank everyone for their efforts as the group works to finalize the proposal for publication on November 30. ____
__ __
NTIA has long believed that governments, like all stakeholders, have an important role to play within multistakeholder processes, including ICANN. Our position on that has not changed. As the CCWG finalizes its proposals for enhancing ICANN’s accountability, we feel we should reiterate our view, as we stated last July, that ICANN preserve and clarify the current practice of the Board in responding to advice it receives from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Specifically, ICANN should amend its Bylaws to clarify that the Board is required to enter into a formal consultation process with the GAC only where it receives GAC advice that is consensus advice based on the current definition within the GAC’s Operating Principles, that is, advice to which no GAC member has raised a formal objection. ____
__ __
We want to make clear that nothing about this proposal is intended to limit how the GAC determines what advice it submits to the Board. As the Bylaws make clear, the Board is obligated to duly take all GAC advice into account. However, it is not practicable for the Board to give GAC advice special consideration unless it is consensus advice as currently defined in the GAC Operating Principles. Anything less than consensus places the Board in the awkward, if not impossible, position of trying to choose between governments with conflicting opinions. NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments. Accordingly, every time the GAC provides consensus advice that it expects to trigger the special Bylaws consideration from the Board, it must be unambiguous and consistent with the current definition in the Operating Principles. Asking the Board to interpret any other threshold of support seems counter to the spirit of the CCWG’s efforts to empower the community in a clear and consistent manner. It also undermines the work done to implement the relevant recommendations of ATRT1 to fix what the community diagnosed as a dysfunctional Board-GAC relationship.____
__ __
We are aware that some countries are concerned that the current GAC Operating Principles could lead to a single-country veto of GAC advice to the detriment of other countries. We too share that concern. But the right place to deal with that issue is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. NTIA stands ready to participate in and contribute to such a discussion to resolve that concern at the appropriate time and place. ____
*__ __*
*__ __*
*__ __*
/Suzanne Murray Radell____/
/Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA____/
/sradell@ntia.doc.gov <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sradell@ntia.doc.gov');> <mailto: sradell@ntia.doc.gov <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sradell@ntia.doc.gov');>>____/
/202-482-3167____/
__ __
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');>
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> <mailto: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');>> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz>
/A better world through a better Internet /
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On Thursday 26 November 2015 03:45 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
As long as we do as we are told, i am sure we can achieve a result that is acceptable to NTIA.
What is obvious to me now, is that not only did the NTIA want a solution that was not dominated by governments, a goal I strongly agree with, they also did not want a solution where the GAC stands with equal footing as a stakeholder, which makes me uneasy.
But we can be thankful, at least we now know what we must do it we want approval. Before now there was ambiguity because as long as the solution did not give government primacy I thought we would be ok. Now I realize we can't even have equality.
This is not disarray but well ordered. We had one serious issue pending and now that has been taken off the table. We can expect that GAC will not be able to approval of the accountability proposal as I expect that will be at least one more member of the GAC disappointed enough to formally object to the solution as constrained by NTIA. So as long as the solution is acceptable to all the SOs and to ALAC, while still be ok with the latest NTIA condition, we should be successful at reaching the end of the discussion.
We also have a good indication of the power of NTIA over ICANN as a backstop for any who doubted that power. Anytime the US speaks, ICANN jumps.
(just to complete the picture)... and the so called 'community' puts its tail between its legs..... There is much more strength in a public or community then this 'community' lets on; perhaps afraid, as the board has openly alleged, of its own representativity and thus legitimacy.. To employ its political strength a pulbic or community has to stand up, and call the bluff of the powerful, which this one has consistently refused to do. How many times have we heard the same outrage, and then a familar routine follows - so well described by the first, ironical, sentence of Avri's email. (my usual disclaimer: a purely political comment and no personal offence may be taken, as I am sure we dont want the board members to take for the above comment) sincerely, parminder
We should rejoice and be thankful as we have less to decide upon.
avri
On 26-Nov-15 04:01, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Jordan is right.
Mr Strickling, from the beginning, it seems to me has done two things, both of which were intended to be, and objectively are, helpful.
1. Clearly set out the criteria under which the NTIA will transfer the legal oversight it has historically asserted over ICANN under statutory power, to the private sector (i.e. to the global stakeholder community.
2. Occasionally provided the odd 'nudge' in 'the right direction'
No-one who has attended ICANN meetings or CCWG F2F should be in any doubt of the wishes of the USG in regards to certain important matters in the developing proposal.
And I made sure to read his blog posts in this regard, too.
This intervention is simply another, carefully written and diplomatic, clie that tells us what we (the CCWG) need to do to unlock the achievement of transition.
The Government of the United States is 'first among equals' in this discussion.
Its views have to be given a different weight, as Jordan correctly notes.
Some appear to recommend the CCWG resist.
Resistance would be futile.
It would also be foolish, I submit.
But then, so far as I can see, the accountability exercise appears to be in such disarray anyway, that even if you took the advice being proffered here, it's quite doubtful you are going to achieve an acceptable proposal withing the self-imposed time frames.
But maybe I'm missing something.
On 26/11/15 03:47, Jordan Carter wrote:
hi Arun,
I think you are eliding two things in an unfortunate way - the GAC decision-making process, and the fact of the United States using its leverage in the transition discussion. The fact that NTIA has set out requirements for the transition to occur, and sharing its view about ST18's importance in validating one of those requirements, is not a commentary on decision-making in GAC.
Or am I missing something?
best Jordan
On 26 November 2015 at 16:43, Arun Mohan Sukumar <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org <mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org>> wrote:
Thank you for posting NTIA's comment on this, Suzanne.
It is for GAC colleagues in the CCWG to weigh in on Assistant Secretary Strickling's note. What concerns me is the NTIA's effort to intervene at this crucial stage in ST 18 discussions. Frankly, it defeats the spirit of compromise that the CCWG has been striving for on this issue. The NTIA suggests GAC should not be worried about a "single country veto", when it is exercising precisely that during this important exercise.
Apologies for what may sound like harsh words: the CCWG is well attuned to attempts by one powerful stakeholder to steer the debate, and has so far resisted/responded to them admirably. One hopes this will be no exception.
Best, Arun
-- Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com <http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/> +91-9871943272 <tel:%2B91-9871943272>
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk <mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>> wrote:
Hello Suzanne,____
__ __
Thank you for the NTIA’s timely comments and suggestions.____
Regards,____
Phil____
__ __
Phil Buckingham____
CEO,Dot Advice Limited____
Email:phil@dotadvice.co.uk <mailto:Email%3Aphil@dotadvice.co.uk>____
Skype: philip.buckingham14____
Mobile: 00 44 (0)7957643357 <tel:00%2044%20%280%297957643357>____
LinkedIn: Phil Buckingham____
__ __
__ __
__ __
__ __
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Radell, Suzanne *Sent:* 25 November 2015 22:33 *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Cc:* ACCT-Staff *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18____
__ __
Hello everyone, Assistant Secretary Strickling has asked that I share this with the CCWG. Best regards, Suz____
__ __
*NTIA Statement on Stress Test 18____*
*November 25, 2015____*
*__ __*
NTIA has been closely following the discussions in the CCWG-Accountability, including the recently concluded small group on stress test 18. As has been the case throughout the work of the CCWG, we are impressed by the time and dedication so many of you are putting into these important discussions. We thank everyone for their efforts as the group works to finalize the proposal for publication on November 30. ____
__ __
NTIA has long believed that governments, like all stakeholders, have an important role to play within multistakeholder processes, including ICANN. Our position on that has not changed. As the CCWG finalizes its proposals for enhancing ICANN’s accountability, we feel we should reiterate our view, as we stated last July, that ICANN preserve and clarify the current practice of the Board in responding to advice it receives from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Specifically, ICANN should amend its Bylaws to clarify that the Board is required to enter into a formal consultation process with the GAC only where it receives GAC advice that is consensus advice based on the current definition within the GAC’s Operating Principles, that is, advice to which no GAC member has raised a formal objection. ____
__ __
We want to make clear that nothing about this proposal is intended to limit how the GAC determines what advice it submits to the Board. As the Bylaws make clear, the Board is obligated to duly take all GAC advice into account. However, it is not practicable for the Board to give GAC advice special consideration unless it is consensus advice as currently defined in the GAC Operating Principles. Anything less than consensus places the Board in the awkward, if not impossible, position of trying to choose between governments with conflicting opinions. NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments. Accordingly, every time the GAC provides consensus advice that it expects to trigger the special Bylaws consideration from the Board, it must be unambiguous and consistent with the current definition in the Operating Principles. Asking the Board to interpret any other threshold of support seems counter to the spirit of the CCWG’s efforts to empower the community in a clear and consistent manner. It also undermines the work done to implement the relevant recommendations of ATRT1 to fix what the community diagnosed as a dysfunctional Board-GAC relationship.____
__ __
We are aware that some countries are concerned that the current GAC Operating Principles could lead to a single-country veto of GAC advice to the detriment of other countries. We too share that concern. But the right place to deal with that issue is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. NTIA stands ready to participate in and contribute to such a discussion to resolve that concern at the appropriate time and place. ____
*__ __*
*__ __*
*__ __*
/Suzanne Murray Radell____/
/Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA____/
/sradell@ntia.doc.gov <mailto:sradell@ntia.doc.gov>____/
/202-482-3167____/
__ __
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz>
/A better world through a better Internet /
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
hi, Except that there is a lot of important improvements in the accountability recommendation that ICANN needs. And it does remove the US as the backstop, despite giving them this concession in the process of doing so. That is a big thing and a good thing. avri On 26-Nov-15 07:33, parminder wrote:
On Thursday 26 November 2015 03:45 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
As long as we do as we are told, i am sure we can achieve a result that is acceptable to NTIA.
What is obvious to me now, is that not only did the NTIA want a solution that was not dominated by governments, a goal I strongly agree with, they also did not want a solution where the GAC stands with equal footing as a stakeholder, which makes me uneasy.
But we can be thankful, at least we now know what we must do it we want approval. Before now there was ambiguity because as long as the solution did not give government primacy I thought we would be ok. Now I realize we can't even have equality.
This is not disarray but well ordered. We had one serious issue pending and now that has been taken off the table. We can expect that GAC will not be able to approval of the accountability proposal as I expect that will be at least one more member of the GAC disappointed enough to formally object to the solution as constrained by NTIA. So as long as the solution is acceptable to all the SOs and to ALAC, while still be ok with the latest NTIA condition, we should be successful at reaching the end of the discussion.
We also have a good indication of the power of NTIA over ICANN as a backstop for any who doubted that power. Anytime the US speaks, ICANN jumps. (just to complete the picture)... and the so called 'community' puts its tail between its legs.....
There is much more strength in a public or community then this 'community' lets on; perhaps afraid, as the board has openly alleged, of its own representativity and thus legitimacy.. To employ its political strength a pulbic or community has to stand up, and call the bluff of the powerful, which this one has consistently refused to do. How many times have we heard the same outrage, and then a familar routine follows - so well described by the first, ironical, sentence of Avri's email.
(my usual disclaimer: a purely political comment and no personal offence may be taken, as I am sure we dont want the board members to take for the above comment)
sincerely, parminder
We should rejoice and be thankful as we have less to decide upon.
avri
On 26-Nov-15 04:01, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Jordan is right.
Mr Strickling, from the beginning, it seems to me has done two things, both of which were intended to be, and objectively are, helpful.
1. Clearly set out the criteria under which the NTIA will transfer the legal oversight it has historically asserted over ICANN under statutory power, to the private sector (i.e. to the global stakeholder community.
2. Occasionally provided the odd 'nudge' in 'the right direction'
No-one who has attended ICANN meetings or CCWG F2F should be in any doubt of the wishes of the USG in regards to certain important matters in the developing proposal.
And I made sure to read his blog posts in this regard, too.
This intervention is simply another, carefully written and diplomatic, clie that tells us what we (the CCWG) need to do to unlock the achievement of transition.
The Government of the United States is 'first among equals' in this discussion.
Its views have to be given a different weight, as Jordan correctly notes.
Some appear to recommend the CCWG resist.
Resistance would be futile.
It would also be foolish, I submit.
But then, so far as I can see, the accountability exercise appears to be in such disarray anyway, that even if you took the advice being proffered here, it's quite doubtful you are going to achieve an acceptable proposal withing the self-imposed time frames.
But maybe I'm missing something.
On 26/11/15 03:47, Jordan Carter wrote:
hi Arun,
I think you are eliding two things in an unfortunate way - the GAC decision-making process, and the fact of the United States using its leverage in the transition discussion. The fact that NTIA has set out requirements for the transition to occur, and sharing its view about ST18's importance in validating one of those requirements, is not a commentary on decision-making in GAC.
Or am I missing something?
best Jordan
On 26 November 2015 at 16:43, Arun Mohan Sukumar <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org <mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org>> wrote:
Thank you for posting NTIA's comment on this, Suzanne.
It is for GAC colleagues in the CCWG to weigh in on Assistant Secretary Strickling's note. What concerns me is the NTIA's effort to intervene at this crucial stage in ST 18 discussions. Frankly, it defeats the spirit of compromise that the CCWG has been striving for on this issue. The NTIA suggests GAC should not be worried about a "single country veto", when it is exercising precisely that during this important exercise.
Apologies for what may sound like harsh words: the CCWG is well attuned to attempts by one powerful stakeholder to steer the debate, and has so far resisted/responded to them admirably. One hopes this will be no exception.
Best, Arun
-- Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com <http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/> +91-9871943272 <tel:%2B91-9871943272>
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk <mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>> wrote:
Hello Suzanne,____
__ __
Thank you for the NTIA’s timely comments and suggestions.____
Regards,____
Phil____
__ __
Phil Buckingham____
CEO,Dot Advice Limited____
Email:phil@dotadvice.co.uk <mailto:Email%3Aphil@dotadvice.co.uk>____
Skype: philip.buckingham14____
Mobile: 00 44 (0)7957643357 <tel:00%2044%20%280%297957643357>____
LinkedIn: Phil Buckingham____
__ __
__ __
__ __
__ __
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Radell, Suzanne *Sent:* 25 November 2015 22:33 *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Cc:* ACCT-Staff *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18____
__ __
Hello everyone, Assistant Secretary Strickling has asked that I share this with the CCWG. Best regards, Suz____
__ __
*NTIA Statement on Stress Test 18____*
*November 25, 2015____*
*__ __*
NTIA has been closely following the discussions in the CCWG-Accountability, including the recently concluded small group on stress test 18. As has been the case throughout the work of the CCWG, we are impressed by the time and dedication so many of you are putting into these important discussions. We thank everyone for their efforts as the group works to finalize the proposal for publication on November 30. ____
__ __
NTIA has long believed that governments, like all stakeholders, have an important role to play within multistakeholder processes, including ICANN. Our position on that has not changed. As the CCWG finalizes its proposals for enhancing ICANN’s accountability, we feel we should reiterate our view, as we stated last July, that ICANN preserve and clarify the current practice of the Board in responding to advice it receives from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Specifically, ICANN should amend its Bylaws to clarify that the Board is required to enter into a formal consultation process with the GAC only where it receives GAC advice that is consensus advice based on the current definition within the GAC’s Operating Principles, that is, advice to which no GAC member has raised a formal objection. ____
__ __
We want to make clear that nothing about this proposal is intended to limit how the GAC determines what advice it submits to the Board. As the Bylaws make clear, the Board is obligated to duly take all GAC advice into account. However, it is not practicable for the Board to give GAC advice special consideration unless it is consensus advice as currently defined in the GAC Operating Principles. Anything less than consensus places the Board in the awkward, if not impossible, position of trying to choose between governments with conflicting opinions. NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments. Accordingly, every time the GAC provides consensus advice that it expects to trigger the special Bylaws consideration from the Board, it must be unambiguous and consistent with the current definition in the Operating Principles. Asking the Board to interpret any other threshold of support seems counter to the spirit of the CCWG’s efforts to empower the community in a clear and consistent manner. It also undermines the work done to implement the relevant recommendations of ATRT1 to fix what the community diagnosed as a dysfunctional Board-GAC relationship.____
__ __
We are aware that some countries are concerned that the current GAC Operating Principles could lead to a single-country veto of GAC advice to the detriment of other countries. We too share that concern. But the right place to deal with that issue is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. NTIA stands ready to participate in and contribute to such a discussion to resolve that concern at the appropriate time and place. ____
*__ __*
*__ __*
*__ __*
/Suzanne Murray Radell____/
/Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA____/
/sradell@ntia.doc.gov <mailto:sradell@ntia.doc.gov>____/
/202-482-3167____/
__ __
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz>
/A better world through a better Internet /
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
I did not read Avri's first sentence as ironic. Was it? I'm shocked. As an aside, I've discovered that irony (and its less cultured cousin, sarcasm) can lead to severe misunderstandings in an international context** Nigel. (**I find the milder forms that we Brits use *all* the time in ordinary business communication are regularly misinterpreted and taken literally by native speakers of American English so I try to avoid it as best I can. Sometimes I can't help myself though.)
On 26-Nov-15 07:33, parminder wrote:
times have we heard the same outrage, and then a familar routine follows - so well described by the first, ironical, sentence of Avri's email.
Irony is such a hard word to define. Can the use of bluntness be a form of irony? A point of rhetoric that is beyond me. i think it was an expression of my [finally] accepting a fact of life. and a definition of what NTIA meant that I had not fully understood before. This was a direct statement to the CCWG from NTIA. Not from within a broader speech, nor in public statements and testimony. Maybe they had made this direct a statement to the CCWG before, but I never perceived one in the manner I perceived this one. So just accepting the facts before me and deciding to move on in a manner that completes this process with the many positives it brings. avri On 26-Nov-15 10:08, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I did not read Avri's first sentence as ironic. Was it? I'm shocked.
As an aside, I've discovered that irony (and its less cultured cousin, sarcasm) can lead to severe misunderstandings in an international context**
Nigel.
(**I find the milder forms that we Brits use *all* the time in ordinary business communication are regularly misinterpreted and taken literally by native speakers of American English so I try to avoid it as best I can. Sometimes I can't help myself though.)
On 26-Nov-15 07:33, parminder wrote:
times have we heard the same outrage, and then a familar routine follows - so well described by the first, ironical, sentence of Avri's email.
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
In my observation, NTIA has avoided making any statements as direct and specific as this, even when asked to do so. I think that their overall reluctance to weigh in as they have done in this instance is important to note. Greg On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Irony is such a hard word to define. Can the use of bluntness be a form of irony? A point of rhetoric that is beyond me.
i think it was an expression of my [finally] accepting a fact of life. and a definition of what NTIA meant that I had not fully understood before.
This was a direct statement to the CCWG from NTIA. Not from within a broader speech, nor in public statements and testimony. Maybe they had made this direct a statement to the CCWG before, but I never perceived one in the manner I perceived this one.
So just accepting the facts before me and deciding to move on in a manner that completes this process with the many positives it brings.
avri
On 26-Nov-15 10:08, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I did not read Avri's first sentence as ironic. Was it? I'm shocked.
As an aside, I've discovered that irony (and its less cultured cousin, sarcasm) can lead to severe misunderstandings in an international context**
Nigel.
(**I find the milder forms that we Brits use *all* the time in ordinary business communication are regularly misinterpreted and taken literally by native speakers of American English so I try to avoid it as best I can. Sometimes I can't help myself though.)
On 26-Nov-15 07:33, parminder wrote:
times have we heard the same outrage, and then a familar routine follows - so well described by the first, ironical, sentence of Avri's email.
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Avri +1 I too, reading the mountain of ccwg mail to date, do not remember reading as direct a statement to ccwg as your observation. My +1 is in relation to: "So just accepting the facts before me and deciding to move on in a manner that completes this process with the many positives it brings." Following the ccwg process to date, with a smattering of participation continues to be, for me, a hugely enlightening and positive learning experience in the development of a global multistakeholder governance model. RD On Nov 26, 2015 11:43 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Irony is such a hard word to define. Can the use of bluntness be a form of irony? A point of rhetoric that is beyond me.
i think it was an expression of my [finally] accepting a fact of life. and a definition of what NTIA meant that I had not fully understood before.
This was a direct statement to the CCWG from NTIA. Not from within a broader speech, nor in public statements and testimony. Maybe they had made this direct a statement to the CCWG before, but I never perceived one in the manner I perceived this one.
So just accepting the facts before me and deciding to move on in a manner that completes this process with the many positives it brings.
avri
On 26-Nov-15 10:08, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I did not read Avri's first sentence as ironic. Was it? I'm shocked.
As an aside, I've discovered that irony (and its less cultured cousin, sarcasm) can lead to severe misunderstandings in an international context**
Nigel.
(**I find the milder forms that we Brits use *all* the time in ordinary business communication are regularly misinterpreted and taken literally by native speakers of American English so I try to avoid it as best I can. Sometimes I can't help myself though.)
On 26-Nov-15 07:33, parminder wrote:
times have we heard the same outrage, and then a familar routine follows - so well described by the first, ironical, sentence of Avri's email.
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, it is important to put this also in the context of the Tunis Agenda and ongoing debate on WSIS 10+ Review on enhanced cooperation. There is a related crucial part in the NTIA Statement which says: "Anything less than (GAC) Consensus places the Board in the awkward, if not impossible, position of trying to choose between governments with conflicting opinions". Insofar the proposed (consensus) mechanism can be seen as a right step towards the implementation of Para. 68 of the Tunis Agenda which reads: "We recognize that all governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the Internet". Within the GAC all governments have equal rights and responsibilities. If somebody argues that this would give the USG a veto right, one can add that this mechanism gives every government in the GAC a veto right. Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Do 26.11.2015 15:50 An: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18 hi, Except that there is a lot of important improvements in the accountability recommendation that ICANN needs. And it does remove the US as the backstop, despite giving them this concession in the process of doing so. That is a big thing and a good thing. avri On 26-Nov-15 07:33, parminder wrote:
On Thursday 26 November 2015 03:45 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
As long as we do as we are told, i am sure we can achieve a result that is acceptable to NTIA.
What is obvious to me now, is that not only did the NTIA want a solution that was not dominated by governments, a goal I strongly agree with, they also did not want a solution where the GAC stands with equal footing as a stakeholder, which makes me uneasy.
But we can be thankful, at least we now know what we must do it we want approval. Before now there was ambiguity because as long as the solution did not give government primacy I thought we would be ok. Now I realize we can't even have equality.
This is not disarray but well ordered. We had one serious issue pending and now that has been taken off the table. We can expect that GAC will not be able to approval of the accountability proposal as I expect that will be at least one more member of the GAC disappointed enough to formally object to the solution as constrained by NTIA. So as long as the solution is acceptable to all the SOs and to ALAC, while still be ok with the latest NTIA condition, we should be successful at reaching the end of the discussion.
We also have a good indication of the power of NTIA over ICANN as a backstop for any who doubted that power. Anytime the US speaks, ICANN jumps. (just to complete the picture)... and the so called 'community' puts its tail between its legs.....
There is much more strength in a public or community then this 'community' lets on; perhaps afraid, as the board has openly alleged, of its own representativity and thus legitimacy.. To employ its political strength a pulbic or community has to stand up, and call the bluff of the powerful, which this one has consistently refused to do. How many times have we heard the same outrage, and then a familar routine follows - so well described by the first, ironical, sentence of Avri's email.
(my usual disclaimer: a purely political comment and no personal offence may be taken, as I am sure we dont want the board members to take for the above comment)
sincerely, parminder
We should rejoice and be thankful as we have less to decide upon.
avri
On 26-Nov-15 04:01, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Jordan is right.
Mr Strickling, from the beginning, it seems to me has done two things, both of which were intended to be, and objectively are, helpful.
1. Clearly set out the criteria under which the NTIA will transfer the legal oversight it has historically asserted over ICANN under statutory power, to the private sector (i.e. to the global stakeholder community.
2. Occasionally provided the odd 'nudge' in 'the right direction'
No-one who has attended ICANN meetings or CCWG F2F should be in any doubt of the wishes of the USG in regards to certain important matters in the developing proposal.
And I made sure to read his blog posts in this regard, too.
This intervention is simply another, carefully written and diplomatic, clie that tells us what we (the CCWG) need to do to unlock the achievement of transition.
The Government of the United States is 'first among equals' in this discussion.
Its views have to be given a different weight, as Jordan correctly notes.
Some appear to recommend the CCWG resist.
Resistance would be futile.
It would also be foolish, I submit.
But then, so far as I can see, the accountability exercise appears to be in such disarray anyway, that even if you took the advice being proffered here, it's quite doubtful you are going to achieve an acceptable proposal withing the self-imposed time frames.
But maybe I'm missing something.
On 26/11/15 03:47, Jordan Carter wrote:
hi Arun,
I think you are eliding two things in an unfortunate way - the GAC decision-making process, and the fact of the United States using its leverage in the transition discussion. The fact that NTIA has set out requirements for the transition to occur, and sharing its view about ST18's importance in validating one of those requirements, is not a commentary on decision-making in GAC.
Or am I missing something?
best Jordan
On 26 November 2015 at 16:43, Arun Mohan Sukumar <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org <mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org>> wrote:
Thank you for posting NTIA's comment on this, Suzanne.
It is for GAC colleagues in the CCWG to weigh in on Assistant Secretary Strickling's note. What concerns me is the NTIA's effort to intervene at this crucial stage in ST 18 discussions. Frankly, it defeats the spirit of compromise that the CCWG has been striving for on this issue. The NTIA suggests GAC should not be worried about a "single country veto", when it is exercising precisely that during this important exercise.
Apologies for what may sound like harsh words: the CCWG is well attuned to attempts by one powerful stakeholder to steer the debate, and has so far resisted/responded to them admirably. One hopes this will be no exception.
Best, Arun
-- Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com <http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/> +91-9871943272 <tel:%2B91-9871943272>
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk <mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>> wrote:
Hello Suzanne,____
__ __
Thank you for the NTIA's timely comments and suggestions.____
Regards,____
Phil____
__ __
Phil Buckingham____
CEO,Dot Advice Limited____
Email:phil@dotadvice.co.uk <mailto:Email%3Aphil@dotadvice.co.uk>____
Skype: philip.buckingham14____
Mobile: 00 44 (0)7957643357 <tel:00%2044%20%280%297957643357>____
LinkedIn: Phil Buckingham____
__ __
__ __
__ __
__ __
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Radell, Suzanne *Sent:* 25 November 2015 22:33 *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Cc:* ACCT-Staff *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18____
__ __
Hello everyone, Assistant Secretary Strickling has asked that I share this with the CCWG. Best regards, Suz____
__ __
*NTIA Statement on Stress Test 18____*
*November 25, 2015____*
*__ __*
NTIA has been closely following the discussions in the CCWG-Accountability, including the recently concluded small group on stress test 18. As has been the case throughout the work of the CCWG, we are impressed by the time and dedication so many of you are putting into these important discussions. We thank everyone for their efforts as the group works to finalize the proposal for publication on November 30. ____
__ __
NTIA has long believed that governments, like all stakeholders, have an important role to play within multistakeholder processes, including ICANN. Our position on that has not changed. As the CCWG finalizes its proposals for enhancing ICANN's accountability, we feel we should reiterate our view, as we stated last July, that ICANN preserve and clarify the current practice of the Board in responding to advice it receives from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Specifically, ICANN should amend its Bylaws to clarify that the Board is required to enter into a formal consultation process with the GAC only where it receives GAC advice that is consensus advice based on the current definition within the GAC's Operating Principles, that is, advice to which no GAC member has raised a formal objection. ____
__ __
We want to make clear that nothing about this proposal is intended to limit how the GAC determines what advice it submits to the Board. As the Bylaws make clear, the Board is obligated to duly take all GAC advice into account. However, it is not practicable for the Board to give GAC advice special consideration unless it is consensus advice as currently defined in the GAC Operating Principles. Anything less than consensus places the Board in the awkward, if not impossible, position of trying to choose between governments with conflicting opinions. NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments. Accordingly, every time the GAC provides consensus advice that it expects to trigger the special Bylaws consideration from the Board, it must be unambiguous and consistent with the current definition in the Operating Principles. Asking the Board to interpret any other threshold of support seems counter to the spirit of the CCWG's efforts to empower the community in a clear and consistent manner. It also undermines the work done to implement the relevant recommendations of ATRT1 to fix what the community diagnosed as a dysfunctional Board-GAC relationship.____
__ __
We are aware that some countries are concerned that the current GAC Operating Principles could lead to a single-country veto of GAC advice to the detriment of other countries. We too share that concern. But the right place to deal with that issue is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. NTIA stands ready to participate in and contribute to such a discussion to resolve that concern at the appropriate time and place. ____
*__ __*
*__ __*
*__ __*
/Suzanne Murray Radell____/
/Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA____/
/sradell@ntia.doc.gov <mailto:sradell@ntia.doc.gov>____/
/202-482-3167____/
__ __
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz>
/A better world through a better Internet /
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Well said, looking forward to the approval of the other chartering organization. Hopefully the gov in ccTLD will not be an issue. I can imagine the various interpretations that some journalists will be drafting from that statement right now :( Maybe the myth of "gov will always find their way around even if not formerly recognized". Hopefully this will not further slow down the process or even cause further fragmentation of the Internet. Regards On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
As long as we do as we are told, i am sure we can achieve a result that is acceptable to NTIA.
What is obvious to me now, is that not only did the NTIA want a solution that was not dominated by governments, a goal I strongly agree with, they also did not want a solution where the GAC stands with equal footing as a stakeholder, which makes me uneasy.
But we can be thankful, at least we now know what we must do it we want approval. Before now there was ambiguity because as long as the solution did not give government primacy I thought we would be ok. Now I realize we can't even have equality.
This is not disarray but well ordered. We had one serious issue pending and now that has been taken off the table. We can expect that GAC will not be able to approval of the accountability proposal as I expect that will be at least one more member of the GAC disappointed enough to formally object to the solution as constrained by NTIA. So as long as the solution is acceptable to all the SOs and to ALAC, while still be ok with the latest NTIA condition, we should be successful at reaching the end of the discussion.
We also have a good indication of the power of NTIA over ICANN as a backstop for any who doubted that power. Anytime the US speaks, ICANN jumps.
We should rejoice and be thankful as we have less to decide upon.
avri
On 26-Nov-15 04:01, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Jordan is right.
Mr Strickling, from the beginning, it seems to me has done two things, both of which were intended to be, and objectively are, helpful.
1. Clearly set out the criteria under which the NTIA will transfer the legal oversight it has historically asserted over ICANN under statutory power, to the private sector (i.e. to the global stakeholder community.
2. Occasionally provided the odd 'nudge' in 'the right direction'
No-one who has attended ICANN meetings or CCWG F2F should be in any doubt of the wishes of the USG in regards to certain important matters in the developing proposal.
And I made sure to read his blog posts in this regard, too.
This intervention is simply another, carefully written and diplomatic, clie that tells us what we (the CCWG) need to do to unlock the achievement of transition.
The Government of the United States is 'first among equals' in this discussion.
Its views have to be given a different weight, as Jordan correctly notes.
Some appear to recommend the CCWG resist.
Resistance would be futile.
It would also be foolish, I submit.
But then, so far as I can see, the accountability exercise appears to be in such disarray anyway, that even if you took the advice being proffered here, it's quite doubtful you are going to achieve an acceptable proposal withing the self-imposed time frames.
But maybe I'm missing something.
On 26/11/15 03:47, Jordan Carter wrote:
hi Arun,
I think you are eliding two things in an unfortunate way - the GAC decision-making process, and the fact of the United States using its leverage in the transition discussion. The fact that NTIA has set out requirements for the transition to occur, and sharing its view about ST18's importance in validating one of those requirements, is not a commentary on decision-making in GAC.
Or am I missing something?
best Jordan
On 26 November 2015 at 16:43, Arun Mohan Sukumar <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org <mailto:arun.sukumar@orfonline.org>> wrote:
Thank you for posting NTIA's comment on this, Suzanne.
It is for GAC colleagues in the CCWG to weigh in on Assistant Secretary Strickling's note. What concerns me is the NTIA's effort to intervene at this crucial stage in ST 18 discussions. Frankly, it defeats the spirit of compromise that the CCWG has been striving for on this issue. The NTIA suggests GAC should not be worried about a "single country veto", when it is exercising precisely that during this important exercise.
Apologies for what may sound like harsh words: the CCWG is well attuned to attempts by one powerful stakeholder to steer the debate, and has so far resisted/responded to them admirably. One hopes this will be no exception.
Best, Arun
-- Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com <http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/> +91-9871943272 <tel:%2B91-9871943272>
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk <mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>> wrote:
Hello Suzanne,____
__ __
Thank you for the NTIA’s timely comments and suggestions.____
Regards,____
Phil____
__ __
Phil Buckingham____
CEO,Dot Advice Limited____
Email:phil@dotadvice.co.uk <mailto:Email%3Aphil@dotadvice.co.uk>____
Skype: philip.buckingham14____
Mobile: 00 44 (0)7957643357 <tel:00%2044%20%280%297957643357>____
LinkedIn: Phil Buckingham____
__ __
__ __
__ __
__ __
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Radell, Suzanne *Sent:* 25 November 2015 22:33 *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Cc:* ACCT-Staff *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18____
__ __
Hello everyone, Assistant Secretary Strickling has asked that I share this with the CCWG. Best regards, Suz____
__ __
*NTIA Statement on Stress Test 18____*
*November 25, 2015____*
*__ __*
NTIA has been closely following the discussions in the CCWG-Accountability, including the recently concluded small group on stress test 18. As has been the case throughout the work of the CCWG, we are impressed by the time and dedication so many of you are putting into these important discussions. We thank everyone for their efforts as the group works to finalize the proposal for publication on November 30. ____
__ __
NTIA has long believed that governments, like all stakeholders, have an important role to play within multistakeholder processes, including ICANN. Our position on that has not changed. As the CCWG finalizes its proposals for enhancing ICANN’s accountability, we feel we should reiterate our view, as we stated last July, that ICANN preserve and clarify the current practice of the Board in responding to advice it receives from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Specifically, ICANN should amend its Bylaws to clarify that the Board is required to enter into a formal consultation process with the GAC only where it receives GAC advice that is consensus advice based on the current definition within the GAC’s Operating Principles, that is, advice to which no GAC member has raised a formal objection. ____
__ __
We want to make clear that nothing about this proposal is intended to limit how the GAC determines what advice it submits to the Board. As the Bylaws make clear, the Board is obligated to duly take all GAC advice into account. However, it is not practicable for the Board to give GAC advice special consideration unless it is consensus advice as currently defined in the GAC Operating Principles. Anything less than consensus places the Board in the awkward, if not impossible, position of trying to choose between governments with conflicting opinions. NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments. Accordingly, every time the GAC provides consensus advice that it expects to trigger the special Bylaws consideration from the Board, it must be unambiguous and consistent with the current definition in the Operating Principles. Asking the Board to interpret any other threshold of support seems counter to the spirit of the CCWG’s efforts to empower the community in a clear and consistent manner. It also undermines the work done to implement the relevant recommendations of ATRT1 to fix what the community diagnosed as a dysfunctional Board-GAC relationship.____
__ __
We are aware that some countries are concerned that the current GAC Operating Principles could lead to a single-country veto of GAC advice to the detriment of other countries. We too share that concern. But the right place to deal with that issue is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. NTIA stands ready to participate in and contribute to such a discussion to resolve that concern at the appropriate time and place. ____
*__ __*
*__ __*
*__ __*
/Suzanne Murray Radell____/
/Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA____/
/sradell@ntia.doc.gov <mailto:sradell@ntia.doc.gov>____/
/202-482-3167____/
__ __
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz>
/A better world through a better Internet /
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Earth to CCWG Accountability: Anyone awake up there? EVERY time the NTIA pronounces itself they most seriously slam the rushed, shoddy crap we are producing. EVERY time. Even though the phrase it ever so politely. I am beginning to become seriously impressed with NTIA. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 26 Nov 2015, at 00:33, Radell, Suzanne <SRadell@ntia.doc.gov> wrote:
Hello everyone, Assistant Secretary Strickling has asked that I share this with the CCWG. Best regards, Suz
NTIA Statement on Stress Test 18 November 25, 2015
NTIA has been closely following the discussions in the CCWG-Accountability, including the recently concluded small group on stress test 18. As has been the case throughout the work of the CCWG, we are impressed by the time and dedication so many of you are putting into these important discussions. We thank everyone for their efforts as the group works to finalize the proposal for publication on November 30.
NTIA has long believed that governments, like all stakeholders, have an important role to play within multistakeholder processes, including ICANN. Our position on that has not changed. As the CCWG finalizes its proposals for enhancing ICANN’s accountability, we feel we should reiterate our view, as we stated last July, that ICANN preserve and clarify the current practice of the Board in responding to advice it receives from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Specifically, ICANN should amend its Bylaws to clarify that the Board is required to enter into a formal consultation process with the GAC only where it receives GAC advice that is consensus advice based on the current definition within the GAC’s Operating Principles, that is, advice to which no GAC member has raised a formal objection.
We want to make clear that nothing about this proposal is intended to limit how the GAC determines what advice it submits to the Board. As the Bylaws make clear, the Board is obligated to duly take all GAC advice into account. However, it is not practicable for the Board to give GAC advice special consideration unless it is consensus advice as currently defined in the GAC Operating Principles. Anything less than consensus places the Board in the awkward, if not impossible, position of trying to choose between governments with conflicting opinions. NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments. Accordingly, every time the GAC provides consensus advice that it expects to trigger the special Bylaws consideration from the Board, it must be unambiguous and consistent with the current definition in the Operating Principles. Asking the Board to interpret any other threshold of support seems counter to the spirit of the CCWG’s efforts to empower the community in a clear and consistent manner. It also undermines the work done to implement the relevant recommendations of ATRT1 to fix what the community diagnosed as a dysfunctional Board-GAC relationship.
We are aware that some countries are concerned that the current GAC Operating Principles could lead to a single-country veto of GAC advice to the detriment of other countries. We too share that concern. But the right place to deal with that issue is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. NTIA stands ready to participate in and contribute to such a discussion to resolve that concern at the appropriate time and place.
Suzanne Murray Radell Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA sradell@ntia.doc.gov 202-482-3167
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I LOVE this bit!!! el
On 26 Nov 2015, at 00:33, Radell, Suzanne <SRadell@ntia.doc.gov> wrote:
[...] But the right place to deal with that issue is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. [...]
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 26 Nov 2015, at 08:38, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Earth to CCWG Accountability: Anyone awake up there?
EVERY time the NTIA pronounces itself they most seriously slam the rushed, shoddy crap we are producing. EVERY time. Even though the phrase it ever so politely.
I am beginning to become seriously impressed with NTIA.
el
participants (17)
-
"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" -
Arun Mohan Sukumar -
Avri Doria -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Drazek, Keith -
Edward Morris -
Greg Shatan -
Jordan Carter -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Mueller, Milton L -
Nigel Roberts -
parminder -
Phil Buckingham -
Phil Corwin -
Radell, Suzanne -
Rudolph Daniel -
Seun Ojedeji