Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability
Dear all, I am forwarding the GAC’s views on the draft recommendations of our third draft proposal. Best regards, León
Inicio del mensaje reenviado:
De: <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> Asunto: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability Fecha: 25 de enero de 2016, 6:50:14 p.m. GMT-6 Para: <thomas@rickert.net>, <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Cc: <gac@icann.org>
Dear Co-Chairs
Please find attached the GAC’s views on the draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG Accountability.
Best regards
Thomas
Thomas Schneider Chair ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
I know that the Annex 11 is on for discussion today. Is it just me or does it seem to others near impossible to reach a conclusion on Annex 11 without the GAC’s input? Even if, in the end, we wind up not accepting their position I would have thought it essential to do so knowing what that position is. Or is it the case that we are going to drive ahead and just proceed without the GAC because they can’t meet our timeline of consideration? Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía [mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx] Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 8:15 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability Dear all, I am forwarding the GAC’s views on the draft recommendations of our third draft proposal. Best regards, León Inicio del mensaje reenviado: De: <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> > Asunto: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability Fecha: 25 de enero de 2016, 6:50:14 p.m. GMT-6 Para: <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >, <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> >, <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> > Cc: <gac@icann.org <mailto:gac@icann.org> > Dear Co-Chairs Please find attached the GAC’s views on the draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG Accountability. Best regards Thomas Thomas Schneider Chair ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
They (several hundred governments) have not developed the (joint) position (yet). el On 2016-01-26 16:32, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
I know that the Annex 11 is on for discussion today. Is it just me or does it seem to others near impossible to reach a conclusion on Annex 11 without the GAC’s input? Even if, in the end, we wind up not accepting their position I would have thought it essential to do so knowing what that position is.
Or is it the case that we are going to drive ahead and just proceed without the GAC because they can’t meet our timeline of consideration?
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
When Leon’s email arrived last night the first thing I did after opening the attachment was scroll to Recommendation 11, because that is the one that most directly speaks to the GAC’s post-transition influence upon ICANN policy decisions, and also the one that has engendered the most controversy (finding almost no support, e.g., among members of the GNSO). So I was of course astounded to see “There is no consensus within the GAC to adopt a formal position on this Recommendation”. That’s it, without even any further exposition on the divergent views within the GAC to provide a minimum of guidance. This is of course a reminder of how difficult it is for the GAC to render advice under the current operating procedure of consensus (and why in the future the GAC might be tempted to lower or redefine that standard to bolster its input). It is also a sharp reminder that governmental representatives engaging in the CCWG’s process are expressing only the view of their nation and not any overall GAC position. As for how the CCWG should proceed given that the GAC has no position on rec. 11, well given that it has missed its chance to register either support, objection, or recommendations for modification I think CCWG has no choice but to proceed based upon input from other Chartering Organizations, because waiting on the GAC is not feasible under the current timeline however it is measured. 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 From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 9:33 AM To: 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Cc: 'ACCT-Staff' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability I know that the Annex 11 is on for discussion today. Is it just me or does it seem to others near impossible to reach a conclusion on Annex 11 without the GAC’s input? Even if, in the end, we wind up not accepting their position I would have thought it essential to do so knowing what that position is. Or is it the case that we are going to drive ahead and just proceed without the GAC because they can’t meet our timeline of consideration? Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> [cid:image001.png@01D15822.8107A7F0]<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía [mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx] Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 8:15 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability Dear all, I am forwarding the GAC’s views on the draft recommendations of our third draft proposal. Best regards, León Inicio del mensaje reenviado: De: <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Asunto: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability Fecha: 25 de enero de 2016, 6:50:14 p.m. GMT-6 Para: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Cc: <gac@icann.org<mailto:gac@icann.org>> Dear Co-Chairs Please find attached the GAC’s views on the draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG Accountability. Best regards Thomas Thomas Schneider Chair ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Dear Paul, GAC has sent its comments abut all 12 Recs Regards Kavouss 2016-01-26 16:15 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>:
When Leon’s email arrived last night the first thing I did after opening the attachment was scroll to Recommendation 11, because that is the one that most directly speaks to the GAC’s post-transition influence upon ICANN policy decisions, and also the one that has engendered the most controversy (finding almost no support, e.g., among members of the GNSO).
So I was of course astounded to see “There is no consensus within the GAC to adopt a formal position on this Recommendation”. That’s it, without even any further exposition on the divergent views within the GAC to provide a minimum of guidance.
This is of course a reminder of how difficult it is for the GAC to render advice under the current operating procedure of consensus (and why in the future the GAC might be tempted to lower or redefine that standard to bolster its input). It is also a sharp reminder that governmental representatives engaging in the CCWG’s process are expressing only the view of their nation and not any overall GAC position.
As for how the CCWG should proceed given that the GAC has no position on rec. 11, well given that it has missed its chance to register either support, objection, or recommendations for modification I think CCWG has no choice but to proceed based upon input from other Chartering Organizations, because waiting on the GAC is not feasible under the current timeline however it is measured.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <202-255-6172>/cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul Rosenzweig *Sent:* Tuesday, January 26, 2016 9:33 AM *To:* 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'; 'Accountability Cross Community' *Cc:* 'ACCT-Staff' *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability
I know that the Annex 11 is on for discussion today. Is it just me or does it seem to others near impossible to reach a conclusion on Annex 11 without the GAC’s input? Even if, in the end, we wind up not accepting their position I would have thought it essential to do so knowing what that position is.
Or is it the case that we are going to drive ahead and just proceed without the GAC because they can’t meet our timeline of consideration?
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...>
*From:* León Felipe Sánchez Ambía [mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>] *Sent:* Monday, January 25, 2016 8:15 PM *To:* Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability
Dear all,
I am forwarding the GAC’s views on the draft recommendations of our third draft proposal.
Best regards,
León
Inicio del mensaje reenviado:
*De: *<Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>
*Asunto: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability*
*Fecha: *25 de enero de 2016, 6:50:14 p.m. GMT-6
*Para: *<thomas@rickert.net>, <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>
*Cc: *<gac@icann.org>
Dear Co-Chairs
Please find attached the GAC’s views on the draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG Accountability.
Best regards
Thomas
Thomas Schneider
Chair
ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On 26 Jan 2016, at 15:15, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
As for how the CCWG should proceed given that the GAC has no position on rec. 11, well given that it has missed its chance to register either support, objection, or recommendations for modification I think CCWG has no choice but to proceed based upon input from other Chartering Organizations, because waiting on the GAC is not feasible under the current timeline however it is measured.
I might have been tempted to disagree, to say that out of respect for the GAC we should allow them a bit longer: being right, and winning consensus support from all parts of the community is more important than this continual self-defeating rush. However, the GAC offers no assurance that they will reach consensus however much extra time we give them. To the contrary, they say that discussions continue on Recs 1, 2 & 6, but on 11 they have been unable to reach a consensus. That seems as final as such things ever get. It is therefore not a matter of time. We can only proceed on the basis that there is no consensus among governments on this issue. Malcolm.
Dear Malcolm, Yes you are right. That is a very sebnsitive issue and the views in GAC ids clealy divided. I do not know whether thay could ever reach a consensus on the text. But that is my personal view as CCWG Participant , The problem is that , irrespective of the lack of consensus in the GAC, there is also divergence of views in CCWG. One group is in favour of the current text with slight improvement including 2/ 3 Board's Vote for rejection of the advice, some other infavour of Simple majoarity .As Steve Delbianco mentioned on the other day, the current text is , in my view representing some sort of balance but if the people insist on the lowering the threshold it makes it very difficult even for those GAC member who almost could agree with the current text to agree to the lowering the threshold. In addition, there are doubnt which were cast about the meabning of "Determines" and direct reference to voting. I personally agree with both. However, should colleagues wish a direct refernce to vote rather than " determine" I could agree to that as well. My problem is the extreme scupulous action / position to define what is the meaning of " Due account " or " taking due account " this is unacceptable to me. I have looked to perhaps ten Convention, Charters and have noted that the term " with due avccount " or " duly taking into account " and similar qualified expressions which have not caused any problem to the entire world's community .Such qzualifier, provide the implememntor some degree of latitude and maouvers to make their judgement based on circumstances, and the context in which they examine the case. In international law ,there are two basic elements 1. LetterS of the Law 2. Spirit of the Law The second one covers the circumstances in which the law has been adopted as well as the cicumstance in which it would be applied. i HOPE i HAVE DESCRIBED THE CASE CLEARLY Remains Kavouss 2016-01-26 16:35 GMT+01:00 Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net>:
On 26 Jan 2016, at 15:15, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
As for how the CCWG should proceed given that the GAC has no position on rec. 11, well given that it has missed its chance to register either support, objection, or recommendations for modification I think CCWG has no choice but to proceed based upon input from other Chartering Organizations, because waiting on the GAC is not feasible under the current timeline however it is measured.
I might have been tempted to disagree, to say that out of respect for the GAC we should allow them a bit longer: being right, and winning consensus support from all parts of the community is more important than this continual self-defeating rush.
However, the GAC offers no assurance that they will reach consensus however much extra time we give them. To the contrary, they say that discussions continue on Recs 1, 2 & 6, but on 11 they have been unable to reach a consensus. That seems as final as such things ever get. It is therefore not a matter of time. We can only proceed on the basis that there is no consensus among governments on this issue.
Malcolm. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
All, Please note the GAC did not reject any of our recommendations, including recommendation 11. That is great news. Kind regards, Thomas --- rickert.net
Am 26.01.2016 um 16:15 schrieb Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>:
When Leon’s email arrived last night the first thing I did after opening the attachment was scroll to Recommendation 11, because that is the one that most directly speaks to the GAC’s post-transition influence upon ICANN policy decisions, and also the one that has engendered the most controversy (finding almost no support, e.g., among members of the GNSO).
So I was of course astounded to see “There is no consensus within the GAC to adopt a formal position on this Recommendation”. That’s it, without even any further exposition on the divergent views within the GAC to provide a minimum of guidance.
This is of course a reminder of how difficult it is for the GAC to render advice under the current operating procedure of consensus (and why in the future the GAC might be tempted to lower or redefine that standard to bolster its input). It is also a sharp reminder that governmental representatives engaging in the CCWG’s process are expressing only the view of their nation and not any overall GAC position.
As for how the CCWG should proceed given that the GAC has no position on rec. 11, well given that it has missed its chance to register either support, objection, or recommendations for modification I think CCWG has no choice but to proceed based upon input from other Chartering Organizations, because waiting on the GAC is not feasible under the current timeline however it is measured.
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
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 9:33 AM To: 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Cc: 'ACCT-Staff' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability
I know that the Annex 11 is on for discussion today. Is it just me or does it seem to others near impossible to reach a conclusion on Annex 11 without the GAC’s input? Even if, in the end, we wind up not accepting their position I would have thought it essential to do so knowing what that position is.
Or is it the case that we are going to drive ahead and just proceed without the GAC because they can’t meet our timeline of consideration?
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <image001.png>
From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía [mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx] Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 8:15 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability
Dear all,
I am forwarding the GAC’s views on the draft recommendations of our third draft proposal.
Best regards,
León
Inicio del mensaje reenviado:
De: <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> Asunto: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability Fecha: 25 de enero de 2016, 6:50:14 p.m. GMT-6 Para: <thomas@rickert.net>, <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Cc: <gac@icann.org>
Dear Co-Chairs
Please find attached the GAC’s views on the draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG Accountability.
Best regards
Thomas
Thomas Schneider Chair ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Yes Lack ok consensus on such an issue so delicate like Stress Test 18 and Rec. 11 in GAC is understandable thus we could make our best to finalise the Rec. Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Jan 2016, at 18:12, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
All, Please note the GAC did not reject any of our recommendations, including recommendation 11. That is great news.
Kind regards, Thomas
--- rickert.net
Am 26.01.2016 um 16:15 schrieb Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>:
When Leon’s email arrived last night the first thing I did after opening the attachment was scroll to Recommendation 11, because that is the one that most directly speaks to the GAC’s post-transition influence upon ICANN policy decisions, and also the one that has engendered the most controversy (finding almost no support, e.g., among members of the GNSO).
So I was of course astounded to see “There is no consensus within the GAC to adopt a formal position on this Recommendation”. That’s it, without even any further exposition on the divergent views within the GAC to provide a minimum of guidance.
This is of course a reminder of how difficult it is for the GAC to render advice under the current operating procedure of consensus (and why in the future the GAC might be tempted to lower or redefine that standard to bolster its input). It is also a sharp reminder that governmental representatives engaging in the CCWG’s process are expressing only the view of their nation and not any overall GAC position.
As for how the CCWG should proceed given that the GAC has no position on rec. 11, well given that it has missed its chance to register either support, objection, or recommendations for modification I think CCWG has no choice but to proceed based upon input from other Chartering Organizations, because waiting on the GAC is not feasible under the current timeline however it is measured.
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
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 9:33 AM To: 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Cc: 'ACCT-Staff' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability
I know that the Annex 11 is on for discussion today. Is it just me or does it seem to others near impossible to reach a conclusion on Annex 11 without the GAC’s input? Even if, in the end, we wind up not accepting their position I would have thought it essential to do so knowing what that position is.
Or is it the case that we are going to drive ahead and just proceed without the GAC because they can’t meet our timeline of consideration?
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <image001.png>
From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía [mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx] Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 8:15 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability
Dear all,
I am forwarding the GAC’s views on the draft recommendations of our third draft proposal.
Best regards,
León
Inicio del mensaje reenviado:
De: <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> Asunto: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability Fecha: 25 de enero de 2016, 6:50:14 p.m. GMT-6 Para: <thomas@rickert.net>, <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Cc: <gac@icann.org>
Dear Co-Chairs
Please find attached the GAC’s views on the draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG Accountability.
Best regards
Thomas
Thomas Schneider Chair ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear CCWG colleagues, Notwithstanding the lack of consensus on recommendation 11 of the 3rd draft report, I think it is beneficial to our discussion to remind ourselves of GAC's consensus text for Stress Test 18, which is part of the ICANN 54 GAC's Communiqué (Dublin): "The discussions on Stress Test 18 have helped the GAC to have a better understanding of the different views on the issue. In assessing the different rationales presented so far related to Stress Test 18, the GAC considered: • The need that each and every Advisory Committee ensures that the advice provided is clear and reflects the consensus view of the Committee; • The need that each and every Advisory Committee should preserve its own autonomy in its definition of consensus; • The value the Board attributes to receiving consensus advice; • The recommendation of the BGRI WG, as reiterated by the ATRT2, to set the threshold for the ICANN Board to reject GAC advice to a 2/3 majority voting, consistent with the threshold established for rejection of ccNSO and GNSO PDP recommendations. In view of the above, having considered concerns expressed by various parties, the GAC agreed to further work on the issue of Stress Test 18, and to submit any further input to the CCWG taking into account the timelines of the CCWG. GAC Members will continue to work within the CCWG to finalise the proposal for enhancing ICANN accountability." Kind regards, Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI) Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Division of Information Society (DI) Ministry of External Relations - Brazil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 -----Mensagem original----- De: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Kavouss Arasteh Enviada em: terça-feira, 26 de janeiro de 2016 15:36 Para: Thomas Rickert Cc: ACCT-Staff; Accountability Cross Community Assunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability Yes Lack ok consensus on such an issue so delicate like Stress Test 18 and Rec. 11 in GAC is understandable thus we could make our best to finalise the Rec. Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 26 Jan 2016, at 18:12, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> wrote: All, Please note the GAC did not reject any of our recommendations, including recommendation 11. That is great news. Kind regards, Thomas --- rickert.net Am 26.01.2016 um 16:15 schrieb Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>: When Leon’s email arrived last night the first thing I did after opening the attachment was scroll to Recommendation 11, because that is the one that most directly speaks to the GAC’s post-transition influence upon ICANN policy decisions, and also the one that has engendered the most controversy (finding almost no support, e.g., among members of the GNSO). So I was of course astounded to see “There is no consensus within the GAC to adopt a formal position on this Recommendation”. That’s it, without even any further exposition on the divergent views within the GAC to provide a minimum of guidance. This is of course a reminder of how difficult it is for the GAC to render advice under the current operating procedure of consensus (and why in the future the GAC might be tempted to lower or redefine that standard to bolster its input). It is also a sharp reminder that governmental representatives engaging in the CCWG’s process are expressing only the view of their nation and not any overall GAC position. As for how the CCWG should proceed given that the GAC has no position on rec. 11, well given that it has missed its chance to register either support, objection, or recommendations for modification I think CCWG has no choice but to proceed based upon input from other Chartering Organizations, because waiting on the GAC is not feasible under the current timeline however it is measured. 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 From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 9:33 AM To: 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Cc: 'ACCT-Staff' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability I know that the Annex 11 is on for discussion today. Is it just me or does it seem to others near impossible to reach a conclusion on Annex 11 without the GAC’s input? Even if, in the end, we wind up not accepting their position I would have thought it essential to do so knowing what that position is. Or is it the case that we are going to drive ahead and just proceed without the GAC because they can’t meet our timeline of consideration? Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> <image001.png> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía [mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx] Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 8:15 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability Dear all, I am forwarding the GAC’s views on the draft recommendations of our third draft proposal. Best regards, León Inicio del mensaje reenviado: De: <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Asunto: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability Fecha: 25 de enero de 2016, 6:50:14 p.m. GMT-6 Para: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Cc: <gac@icann.org<mailto:gac@icann.org>> Dear Co-Chairs Please find attached the GAC’s views on the draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG Accountability. Best regards Thomas Thomas Schneider Chair ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ 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
Thank you for reminding us of the GAC's consensus text on ST18 from Dublin. The present text in rec. 11 is in our view in line with the GAC's consensus text, and as Thomas has stated the GAC did not reject recommendation 11 or any of the recommendations. Best, Finn Sendt fra min iPad Den 26. jan. 2016 kl. 19.15 skrev Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva <pedro.ivo@itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:pedro.ivo@itamaraty.gov.br>>: Dear CCWG colleagues, Notwithstanding the lack of consensus on recommendation 11 of the 3rd draft report, I think it is beneficial to our discussion to remind ourselves of GAC's consensus text for Stress Test 18, which is part of the ICANN 54 GAC's Communiqué (Dublin): "The discussions on Stress Test 18 have helped the GAC to have a better understanding of the different views on the issue. In assessing the different rationales presented so far related to Stress Test 18, the GAC considered: • The need that each and every Advisory Committee ensures that the advice provided is clear and reflects the consensus view of the Committee; • The need that each and every Advisory Committee should preserve its own autonomy in its definition of consensus; • The value the Board attributes to receiving consensus advice; • The recommendation of the BGRI WG, as reiterated by the ATRT2, to set the threshold for the ICANN Board to reject GAC advice to a 2/3 majority voting, consistent with the threshold established for rejection of ccNSO and GNSO PDP recommendations. In view of the above, having considered concerns expressed by various parties, the GAC agreed to further work on the issue of Stress Test 18, and to submit any further input to the CCWG taking into account the timelines of the CCWG. GAC Members will continue to work within the CCWG to finalise the proposal for enhancing ICANN accountability." Kind regards, Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI) Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Division of Information Society (DI) Ministry of External Relations - Brazil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 -----Mensagem original----- De: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Kavouss Arasteh Enviada em: terça-feira, 26 de janeiro de 2016 15:36 Para: Thomas Rickert Cc: ACCT-Staff; Accountability Cross Community Assunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability Yes Lack ok consensus on such an issue so delicate like Stress Test 18 and Rec. 11 in GAC is understandable thus we could make our best to finalise the Rec. Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 26 Jan 2016, at 18:12, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> wrote: All, Please note the GAC did not reject any of our recommendations, including recommendation 11. That is great news. Kind regards, Thomas --- rickert.net<http://rickert.net> Am 26.01.2016 um 16:15 schrieb Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>: When Leon’s email arrived last night the first thing I did after opening the attachment was scroll to Recommendation 11, because that is the one that most directly speaks to the GAC’s post-transition influence upon ICANN policy decisions, and also the one that has engendered the most controversy (finding almost no support, e.g., among members of the GNSO). So I was of course astounded to see “There is no consensus within the GAC to adopt a formal position on this Recommendation”. That’s it, without even any further exposition on the divergent views within the GAC to provide a minimum of guidance. This is of course a reminder of how difficult it is for the GAC to render advice under the current operating procedure of consensus (and why in the future the GAC might be tempted to lower or redefine that standard to bolster its input). It is also a sharp reminder that governmental representatives engaging in the CCWG’s process are expressing only the view of their nation and not any overall GAC position. As for how the CCWG should proceed given that the GAC has no position on rec. 11, well given that it has missed its chance to register either support, objection, or recommendations for modification I think CCWG has no choice but to proceed based upon input from other Chartering Organizations, because waiting on the GAC is not feasible under the current timeline however it is measured. 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 From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 9:33 AM To: 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Cc: 'ACCT-Staff' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability I know that the Annex 11 is on for discussion today. Is it just me or does it seem to others near impossible to reach a conclusion on Annex 11 without the GAC’s input? Even if, in the end, we wind up not accepting their position I would have thought it essential to do so knowing what that position is. Or is it the case that we are going to drive ahead and just proceed without the GAC because they can’t meet our timeline of consideration? Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> <image001.png> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía [mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx] Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 8:15 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability Dear all, I am forwarding the GAC’s views on the draft recommendations of our third draft proposal. Best regards, León Inicio del mensaje reenviado: De: <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Asunto: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability Fecha: 25 de enero de 2016, 6:50:14 p.m. GMT-6 Para: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Cc: <gac@icann.org<mailto:gac@icann.org>> Dear Co-Chairs Please find attached the GAC’s views on the draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG Accountability. Best regards Thomas Thomas Schneider Chair ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Finn, Thanks for expressing your view. However, as you are aware, it is not shared by some other GAC members, who consider that recommendation 11 departs from the GAC consensus language in the Dublin Communiqué. As for the GAC's lack of consensus on recommendation 11, I guess it is better described as being the result of the fact that some GAC members rejected it, others supported it and others remained silent about it. Regards, Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI) Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Division of Information Society (DI) Ministry of External Relations - Brazil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 -----Mensagem original----- De: Finn Petersen [mailto:FinPet@erst.dk] Enviada em: terça-feira, 26 de janeiro de 2016 16:48 Para: Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Cc: Kavouss Arasteh; Thomas Rickert; ACCT-Staff; Accountability Cross Community Assunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability Thank you for reminding us of the GAC's consensus text on ST18 from Dublin. The present text in rec. 11 is in our view in line with the GAC's consensus text, and as Thomas has stated the GAC did not reject recommendation 11 or any of the recommendations. Best, Finn Sendt fra min iPad Den 26. jan. 2016 kl. 19.15 skrev Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva <pedro.ivo@itamaraty.gov.br>: Dear CCWG colleagues, Notwithstanding the lack of consensus on recommendation 11 of the 3rd draft report, I think it is beneficial to our discussion to remind ourselves of GAC's consensus text for Stress Test 18, which is part of the ICANN 54 GAC's Communiqué (Dublin): "The discussions on Stress Test 18 have helped the GAC to have a better understanding of the different views on the issue. In assessing the different rationales presented so far related to Stress Test 18, the GAC considered: . The need that each and every Advisory Committee ensures that the advice provided is clear and reflects the consensus view of the Committee; . The need that each and every Advisory Committee should preserve its own autonomy in its definition of consensus; . The value the Board attributes to receiving consensus advice; . The recommendation of the BGRI WG, as reiterated by the ATRT2, to set the threshold for the ICANN Board to reject GAC advice to a 2/3 majority voting, consistent with the threshold established for rejection of ccNSO and GNSO PDP recommendations. In view of the above, having considered concerns expressed by various parties, the GAC agreed to further work on the issue of Stress Test 18, and to submit any further input to the CCWG taking into account the timelines of the CCWG. GAC Members will continue to work within the CCWG to finalise the proposal for enhancing ICANN accountability." Kind regards, Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI) Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Division of Information Society (DI) Ministry of External Relations - Brazil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 -----Mensagem original----- De: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Kavouss Arasteh Enviada em: terça-feira, 26 de janeiro de 2016 15:36 Para: Thomas Rickert Cc: ACCT-Staff; Accountability Cross Community Assunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability Yes Lack ok consensus on such an issue so delicate like Stress Test 18 and Rec. 11 in GAC is understandable thus we could make our best to finalise the Rec. Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 26 Jan 2016, at 18:12, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> > wrote: All, Please note the GAC did not reject any of our recommendations, including recommendation 11. That is great news. Kind regards, Thomas --- rickert.net Am 26.01.2016 um 16:15 schrieb Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> >: When Leon's email arrived last night the first thing I did after opening the attachment was scroll to Recommendation 11, because that is the one that most directly speaks to the GAC's post-transition influence upon ICANN policy decisions, and also the one that has engendered the most controversy (finding almost no support, e.g., among members of the GNSO). So I was of course astounded to see "There is no consensus within the GAC to adopt a formal position on this Recommendation". That's it, without even any further exposition on the divergent views within the GAC to provide a minimum of guidance. This is of course a reminder of how difficult it is for the GAC to render advice under the current operating procedure of consensus (and why in the future the GAC might be tempted to lower or redefine that standard to bolster its input). It is also a sharp reminder that governmental representatives engaging in the CCWG's process are expressing only the view of their nation and not any overall GAC position. As for how the CCWG should proceed given that the GAC has no position on rec. 11, well given that it has missed its chance to register either support, objection, or recommendations for modification I think CCWG has no choice but to proceed based upon input from other Chartering Organizations, because waiting on the GAC is not feasible under the current timeline however it is measured. 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 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 Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 9:33 AM To: 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Cc: 'ACCT-Staff' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability I know that the Annex 11 is on for discussion today. Is it just me or does it seem to others near impossible to reach a conclusion on Annex 11 without the GAC's input? Even if, in the end, we wind up not accepting their position I would have thought it essential to do so knowing what that position is. Or is it the case that we are going to drive ahead and just proceed without the GAC because they can't meet our timeline of consideration? Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article... <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> > <image001.png> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema... <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> > From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía [mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> ] Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 8:15 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability Dear all, I am forwarding the GAC's views on the draft recommendations of our third draft proposal. Best regards, León Inicio del mensaje reenviado: De: <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> > Asunto: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability Fecha: 25 de enero de 2016, 6:50:14 p.m. GMT-6 Para: <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >, <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> >, <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> > Cc: <gac@icann.org <mailto:gac@icann.org> > Dear Co-Chairs Please find attached the GAC's views on the draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG Accountability. Best regards Thomas Thomas Schneider Chair ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ 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 <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 <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
With all respect, this text merely states that the GAC considered many factors in formulating its Dublin Communique, and then “agreed to further work on the issue of Stress Test 18, and to submit any further input to the CCWG taking into account the timelines of the CCWG”. It conveys no position on ST 18. The Dublin meeting concluded on October 22nd. It is now three months – a quarter of a year – later, and the GAC, taking into account the timeline of the CCWG, has failed to reach a consensus position on the Recommendation that is most relevant to its role in a post-transition ICANN; that is, the threshold for Board consideration/rejection of GAC advice. It has not provided further input in a timely matter. So yes, the GAC did not reject recommendation 11, but neither did it endorse it – nor did it take the intermediate route of raising informal concerns short of rejection or acceptance and suggesting modifications, as other SOs and ACs have done on various matters. Its position is essentially one of silence, and may be viewed by some as signaling official indifference. In any event, the statements of GAC representatives participating in this dialogue must of course be treated respectfully, but only as the positions of the governments they represent as there is now officially no GAC consensus position on recommendation 11. In any event, the CCWG must press on and formulate a Supplemental and hopefully final proposal based on the endorsements, rejections, and suggestions it has received. 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 From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 1:11 PM To: 'Kavouss Arasteh'; Thomas Rickert Cc: ACCT-Staff; Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability Dear CCWG colleagues, Notwithstanding the lack of consensus on recommendation 11 of the 3rd draft report, I think it is beneficial to our discussion to remind ourselves of GAC's consensus text for Stress Test 18, which is part of the ICANN 54 GAC's Communiqué (Dublin): "The discussions on Stress Test 18 have helped the GAC to have a better understanding of the different views on the issue. In assessing the different rationales presented so far related to Stress Test 18, the GAC considered: • The need that each and every Advisory Committee ensures that the advice provided is clear and reflects the consensus view of the Committee; • The need that each and every Advisory Committee should preserve its own autonomy in its definition of consensus; • The value the Board attributes to receiving consensus advice; • The recommendation of the BGRI WG, as reiterated by the ATRT2, to set the threshold for the ICANN Board to reject GAC advice to a 2/3 majority voting, consistent with the threshold established for rejection of ccNSO and GNSO PDP recommendations. In view of the above, having considered concerns expressed by various parties, the GAC agreed to further work on the issue of Stress Test 18, and to submit any further input to the CCWG taking into account the timelines of the CCWG. GAC Members will continue to work within the CCWG to finalise the proposal for enhancing ICANN accountability." Kind regards, Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI) Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Division of Information Society (DI) Ministry of External Relations - Brazil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 -----Mensagem original----- De: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Kavouss Arasteh Enviada em: terça-feira, 26 de janeiro de 2016 15:36 Para: Thomas Rickert Cc: ACCT-Staff; Accountability Cross Community Assunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability Yes Lack ok consensus on such an issue so delicate like Stress Test 18 and Rec. 11 in GAC is understandable thus we could make our best to finalise the Rec. Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 26 Jan 2016, at 18:12, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> wrote: All, Please note the GAC did not reject any of our recommendations, including recommendation 11. That is great news. Kind regards, Thomas --- rickert.net Am 26.01.2016 um 16:15 schrieb Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>: When Leon’s email arrived last night the first thing I did after opening the attachment was scroll to Recommendation 11, because that is the one that most directly speaks to the GAC’s post-transition influence upon ICANN policy decisions, and also the one that has engendered the most controversy (finding almost no support, e.g., among members of the GNSO). So I was of course astounded to see “There is no consensus within the GAC to adopt a formal position on this Recommendation”. That’s it, without even any further exposition on the divergent views within the GAC to provide a minimum of guidance. This is of course a reminder of how difficult it is for the GAC to render advice under the current operating procedure of consensus (and why in the future the GAC might be tempted to lower or redefine that standard to bolster its input). It is also a sharp reminder that governmental representatives engaging in the CCWG’s process are expressing only the view of their nation and not any overall GAC position. As for how the CCWG should proceed given that the GAC has no position on rec. 11, well given that it has missed its chance to register either support, objection, or recommendations for modification I think CCWG has no choice but to proceed based upon input from other Chartering Organizations, because waiting on the GAC is not feasible under the current timeline however it is measured. 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 From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 9:33 AM To: 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Cc: 'ACCT-Staff' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability I know that the Annex 11 is on for discussion today. Is it just me or does it seem to others near impossible to reach a conclusion on Annex 11 without the GAC’s input? Even if, in the end, we wind up not accepting their position I would have thought it essential to do so knowing what that position is. Or is it the case that we are going to drive ahead and just proceed without the GAC because they can’t meet our timeline of consideration? Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> <image001.png> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía [mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx] Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 8:15 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability Dear all, I am forwarding the GAC’s views on the draft recommendations of our third draft proposal. Best regards, León Inicio del mensaje reenviado: De: <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Asunto: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability Fecha: 25 de enero de 2016, 6:50:14 p.m. GMT-6 Para: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Cc: <gac@icann.org<mailto:gac@icann.org>> Dear Co-Chairs Please find attached the GAC’s views on the draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG Accountability. Best regards Thomas Thomas Schneider Chair ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
I agree with Phil. If GAC can’t even come to agreement that it wants and should have these powers, then we have no business giving them. Without approval from GAC on these powers, we can’t insist on changing it in this way. It isn’t appropriate to say that the lack of objection should be treated as acceptance. That is a logical flaw. Robin
On Jan 26, 2016, at 7:15 AM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
When Leon’s email arrived last night the first thing I did after opening the attachment was scroll to Recommendation 11, because that is the one that most directly speaks to the GAC’s post-transition influence upon ICANN policy decisions, and also the one that has engendered the most controversy (finding almost no support, e.g., among members of the GNSO).
So I was of course astounded to see “There is no consensus within the GAC to adopt a formal position on this Recommendation”. That’s it, without even any further exposition on the divergent views within the GAC to provide a minimum of guidance.
This is of course a reminder of how difficult it is for the GAC to render advice under the current operating procedure of consensus (and why in the future the GAC might be tempted to lower or redefine that standard to bolster its input). It is also a sharp reminder that governmental representatives engaging in the CCWG’s process are expressing only the view of their nation and not any overall GAC position.
As for how the CCWG should proceed given that the GAC has no position on rec. 11, well given that it has missed its chance to register either support, objection, or recommendations for modification I think CCWG has no choice but to proceed based upon input from other Chartering Organizations, because waiting on the GAC is not feasible under the current timeline however it is measured.
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
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 Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 9:33 AM To: 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Cc: 'ACCT-Staff' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability
I know that the Annex 11 is on for discussion today. Is it just me or does it seem to others near impossible to reach a conclusion on Annex 11 without the GAC’s input? Even if, in the end, we wind up not accepting their position I would have thought it essential to do so knowing what that position is.
Or is it the case that we are going to drive ahead and just proceed without the GAC because they can’t meet our timeline of consideration?
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> <image001.png> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...>
From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía [mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>] Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 8:15 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability
Dear all,
I am forwarding the GAC’s views on the draft recommendations of our third draft proposal.
Best regards,
León
Inicio del mensaje reenviado:
De: <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Asunto: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability Fecha: 25 de enero de 2016, 6:50:14 p.m. GMT-6 Para: <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Cc: <gac@icann.org <mailto:gac@icann.org>>
Dear Co-Chairs
Please find attached the GAC’s views on the draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG Accountability.
Best regards
Thomas
Thomas Schneider Chair ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
participants (10)
-
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Finn Petersen -
Kavouss Arasteh -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Malcolm Hutty -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva -
Phil Corwin -
Robin Gross -
Thomas Rickert