For those interested in more detail on the GNSO conversation on recommendation 11 (CCWG Accountability) – below are selected points made over the past 48 hours. You’ll no doubt see the GNSO drafter letter to CCWG co-chairs soon enough but let me know if you don’t and I’ll forward it.   

 

Rec #11

GNSO position on this is nuanced. Most SG/C comments noted the 2/3rds vote of the Board requirement to reject GAC advice as a deal-breaker.  Some SGs and Cs said they did support other components of Rec #11, specifically the definition of GAC Consensus as Lacking Formal Objection. GNSO response therefore appears to be broad opposition to the 2/3rds vote threshold, and support/non-opposition to keep the current definition of GAC Consensus. In effect, the GNSO wants to preserve the status quo on both points.

 

Selected points made by councillors:

-          It is not so much recommendation 11 itself that generates concern (although I feel compelled to point out that recommendation 11 was adopted in a straw poll in  a call with a higher than normal percentage of GAC members, and has been opposed by nearly a 2-1 margin in public comments) but rather the combination of recommendations 1, 10 and 11 that causes concern. Recommendation 1 allows the GAC to fully participate in the community mechanism on equal terms with the other SOACs. Recommendation 10 allows the GAC to avoid the accountability reviews other SOACs are subject to. Recommendation 11 not only allows the GAC to maintain its special advisory role but increases the weight it must be given.

-          Transition should not be used to enhance government authority.

-          The RySG and BC indicated a willingness to support the 2/3 threshold IF certain other terms were included, so it’s not accurate to say everyone in the GNSO does not support 2/3 at all. We may not support the proposal as currently written, but that doesn’t mean 2/3 won’t receive some support pending incorporation of those recommended changes.

-          The current definition of GAC consensus is their current operating procedure, but that definition IS OPEN TO CHANGE BY THE GAC at any time. Incorporating that definition into the bylaws is brand new, and it is the other half of the ST-18 package (with the 2/3 threshold).

 

 

Regards

 

cid:image001.png@01D13CD0.2D58E640

Patrick Myles

Information Manager

CENTR - Belliardstraat 20, 1040 Brussels, Belgium

tel +32 2 627 55 50

www.centr.org – Twitter – Facebook – LinkedIn – Skype: pat_centr