November 2015 - S18 - lists.icann.org

ST18 subgroup report Nov 23
by Mathieu Weill Nov. 23, 2015

Nov. 23, 2015

Dear Colleagues, Please find attached the (very summarized) report of our work that will be presented tomorrow in the CCWG. It will be circulated momentarily to the full group. Thanks again for all the constructive and valuable inputs you have provided to advance this key item of our work. Best, Mathieu

1 0

Rickert Language --RE: RES: RES: Slight variation on FInn's text
by Phil Corwin Nov. 23, 2015

Nov. 23, 2015

As I requested in the chat room on the just ended meeting, can staff please circulate the language of the Rickert alternative? Thank you. 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 -----Original Message----- From: s18-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 9:01 AM To: s18(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [S18] RES: RES: Slight variation on FInn's text Agree with Keith. Robin > On Nov 23, 2015, at 5:58 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears(a)cdt.org> wrote: > > + 1 Keith > > On 23/11/2015 13:50, Drazek, Keith wrote: >> All, >> >> After further consideration over the weekend, I'm concerned this sub-group, and the CCWG, will propose significant structural changes that will not receive support from the chartering organizations. Increasing the power/influence of governments is likely to be a non-starter with many community groups. The current proposals would give the GAC two thresholds for determining consensus advice AND require the Board treat both with special deference. The 2/3 threshold was previously rejected by the community. Why do we think that's likely to receive broad community support now? As I've noted previously, members of the RySG do not support this move. I'm worried we're setting ourselves up for failure with the chartering organization approval process. The ST18 language has survived the previous comment periods with broad support, so in my view that should be the default proposal. These new suggestions do not carry the same weight in the context of our evolving work output. As such, I believe we should maintain the ST18 language and defer other changes that would empower the GAC to Work Stream 2. >> >> Regards, >> Keith >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: s18-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf >> Of Roelof Meijer >> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 8:03 AM >> To: Avri Doria; s18(a)icann.org >> Subject: Re: [S18] RES: RES: Slight variation on FInn's text >> >> Dear all, >> >> Probably quite unsurprising, I am in complete agreement with Avri here. >> >> Yes, it is a well reasoned -and by consequence a very reasonable- compromise offering, that does not require the amendment Brett proposes. >> The proposed difference in treatment of full consensus advice versus near-consensus advice should be acceptable to the community. In the case of any SO or AC, so also in the case of the GAC. >> >> And no, if the board deals with full/near consensus advice from GAC in line with the proposal, this does not put the board in the situation of judging between states. It will just deal with GAC advice in line with the GAC advice on how to deal with GAC advice… Right? >> >> I find it no more than logic that it should not be too easy for the board to reject the consensus or near consensus advice from any SO or AC, including the GAC representing a significant number of governments. But if there are good reasons to reject such advice, the community will speak and the board’s vote will pass the treshold. >> Yes, the will then be an obligation to “TRY, in good faith and in a >> timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution”. >> Both in the case of consensus as wel ass near-consensus advice. In >> that light, I would like to reiterate what I stressed before: we seem >> to depart in our thinking only from the position that GAC advice in >> most cases is something that the community would not like to follow >> and that the board is with the community on that. Maybe there should >> be a ST18bis: sound near consensus advice from the GAC that only one >> GAC member and the majority of the board want to kill… >> >> Let’s be realistic and responsible and accept this proposal. >> >> >> Best, >> >> Roelof Meijer >> >> >> >> >> On 22-11-15 12:21, "s18-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of Avri Doria" >> <s18-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of avri(a)ella.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I find it hard to support the amendment to what seems to me a well >>> reasoned compromise offering. In considering this compromise >>> offering consider that Board-GAC negotiations are not bi-laterals >>> that happen in a vacuum. They are extended events that occur within >>> the context of the entire bottom up multistakeholder process. >>> >>> In my opinion a proper policy development process requires not only >>> that all AC* issues be discussed fully with an attempt to resolve >>> the issue, but that this discussion take into account the bottom up >>> multistakeholder process, a process that does not end when a >>> recommendation is made by an SO. I think that in the process of >>> these discussions the Board is not only responsible for genuine >>> dialogue and understanding, but that it must reach out to the SO >>> that made the recommendation and the rest of the community during >>> such a dialogue; it must involve the bottom up multistakeholder >>> process (BUMP) to which ICANN is committed. Near-consensus advice, >>> if the GAC decides to give such near-consensus advice, is also >>> serious in that it involves most of the states participating in GAC >>> and should be properly considered by the board with the inclusion of >>> all stakeholders, including the GAC members who were not part of the near-consensus. >>> >>> I think that saying that this puts the board in the position of >>> judging between states is an exaggeration. The board is in the >>> position of judging the advice of the AC and the recommendation of >>> the bottom up community process (BUMP), going back to the community >>> for its clarifications and considerations as well as wider public consultation. >>> and then it must do what is best for ICANN. And if community >>> consultations show a united opinion against the advice, the Board >>> will have a strong motivation for rejecting the advice as not in the >>> best interests of ICANN and the Internet community. >>> To some this may seem quixotic, but I think that the BUMP clause >>> being added to the Articles backs up this view. I also point to >>> various changes made by the GNSO and approved by the Board for more >>> nuanced consultations between the Board and the GNSO which can be >>> used during such negotiations with the GAC. I do not know enough >>> about ccNSO or ASO procedures, but I expect it is possible for the >>> Board to consult them during negotiations with the GAC. Some have >>> argued that the Board is incapable of saying no to the GAC despite >>> their ability to say no to the rest of the community, and thus no >>> amount of BUMP can save us from a GAC dominated policy process. I >>> believe otherwise, and especially now that SOs will be able to >>> remove a Board member who cannot say no the GAC, sooner than the >>> next election if needs be. I believe the Board will learn to say no, >>> if the GAC advice privilege is abused in the future, whether for consensus or near consensus advice. >>> >>> What we need to deal with is the erroneous assumption that >>> negotiation means agreement by the Board. As it is a best-effort >>> negotiation, rejection is always a possible outcome. We also need to >>> realize that within the newly revised Articles and Bylaws this does >>> not constitute a "proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a >>> government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution. " >>> Advice that can be rejected by the Board in consultation within the >>> Community BUMP is not a government led solution. >>> >>> So I can support the idea of Board best-effort negotiations even >>> with GAC near consensus, as long as the Board does it in a manner >>> that is consistent with ICANN's bottom up multistakeholder practice. >>> I can also support raising the Board requirement to 2/3 in the case >>> of full consensus, as I believe that if rejecting the advice is what >>> the community consensus wants done, it will be rejected. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> * By all AC I mean ALAC, SSAC and RSSAC too. Personally I think >>> they should have an opportunity for the same bylaws privileged of >>> negotiation that the GAC gets. I know that is not under discussion >>> in WS1. It was discussed in ATRT2, though not accepted, and I >>> expect it will be discussed again someday in the future. >>> >>> >>> On 20-Nov-15 13:59, James Gannon wrote: >>>> I think that this is a friendly amendment that our GAC colleagues >>>> should seriously consider. I think it keeps the spirit of >>>> compromise while moving the discussion forward. >>>> >>>> -jg >>>> >>>> From: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org >>>> <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> >>>> Date: Friday 20 November 2015 at 6:57 p.m. >>>> To: Mark Carvell <mark.carvell(a)culture.gov.uk >>>> <mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk>>, Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva >>>> <pedro.ivo(a)itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:pedro.ivo@itamaraty.gov.br>> >>>> Cc: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com >>>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>, "s18(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:s18@icann.org>" <s18(a)icann.org <mailto:s18@icann.org>>, >>>> Nick Shorey <nick.shorey(a)culture.gov.uk >>>> <mailto:nick.shorey@culture.gov.uk>> >>>> Subject: RE: [S18] RES: RES: Slight variation on FInn's text >>>> >>>> Thanks Mark, >>>> >>>> >>>> I appreciate this. There remains considerable skepticism about this >>>> from some quarters. However, based on several conversations I’ve >>>> had, if you could live with the friendly amendment I proposed, I >>>> think this would be resolved. Even with that change, the text would >>>> be more toward the GAC position that the text in the 2^nd draft. >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> >>>> Brett >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:*Mark Carvell [mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk] >>>> *Sent:* Friday, November 20, 2015 1:44 PM >>>> *To:* Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva >>>> *Cc:* Paul Rosenzweig; Schaefer, Brett; s18(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:s18@icann.org>; Nick Shorey >>>> *Subject:* Re: [S18] RES: RES: Slight variation on FInn's text >>>> >>>> >>>> Pedro + ST18 colleagues >>>> >>>> >>>> I agree we made very good progress towards a solution today but we >>>> will all need to review carefully especially in view of the >>>> politically sensitive nature of the core issues here. >>>> >>>> >>>> In the light of today's call, Anders, Finn, Gema, Jorge and I as >>>> members of the European group have have had a go at revising the >>>> text to reflect what we believe is the common ground of today's >>>> discussion, if not yet final agreement. >>>> >>>> >>>> Following a consultation with Thomas Schneider in his capacity as >>>> GAC Chair, I now submit this on behalf of the participating >>>> European governments to the ST18 Group as a basis for discussion >>>> ahead of the call on Monday. We look forward very much to hearing >>>> views online and indeed on the Monday call. >>>> >>>> >>>> In the meantime, I hope everyone on ST18 has a great, stress-free >>>> weekend! >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> >>>> >>>> Mark >>>> >>>> >>>> Mark Carvell >>>> >>>> United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory >>>> Committee of ICANN >>>> >>>> >>>> Global Internet Governance Policy >>>> >>>> Department for Culture, Media and Sport >>>> >>>> mark.carvell(a)culture.gov.uk <mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk> >>>> >>>> tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062 >>>> >>>> >>>> On 20 November 2015 at 18:14, Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva >>>> <pedro.ivo(a)itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:pedro.ivo@itamaraty.gov.br>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Paul, >>>> >>>> Thanks for your email. I amicably ask you to refrain from inferring >>>> more than what is literally indicated in my email. >>>> >>>> My objection is with regards Brett's amendment to Finn's text. For >>>> the reasons stated below. >>>> >>>> With regards to Finn's original proposal (without Brett's >>>> addition), Brazil is still evaluating the language. My immediate >>>> reaction is that it goes beyond the Dublin Communiqué, but still >>>> deserves a closer analysis. I am sure some other countries within >>>> the GAC are in the same position. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Divisão da Sociedade da >>>> Informação (DI) Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil >>>> T: + 55 61 2030-6609 <tel:%2B%2055%2061%202030-6609> >>>> >>>> Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Division of Information Society >>>> (DI) Ministry of External Relations - Brazil >>>> T: + 55 61 2030-6609 <tel:%2B%2055%2061%202030-6609> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> -- >>>> --- >>>> BrettSchaefer >>>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory >>>> Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for >>>> National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation >>>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE >>>> Washington, DC 20002 >>>> 202-608-6097 >>>> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/> >>>> >>>> -----Mensagem original----- >>>> De: Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com >>>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>] >>>> Enviada em: sexta-feira, 20 de novembro de 2015 13:28 >>>> Para: Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva; 'Schaefer, Brett'; s18(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:s18@icann.org> >>>> Assunto: RE: [S18] RES: Slight variation on FInn's text >>>> >>>> BTW, you do realize, don’t you Pedro that you are rejecting not >>>> just Brett’s text, but Finn’s proposal as well. Does this not >>>> suggest that perhaps your view is isolated even within the GAC? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Paul >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Paul Rosenzweig >>>> >>>> paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com >>>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> >>>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com >>>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>> >>>> >>>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> >>>> >>>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> >>>> >>>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> >>>> >>>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 >>>> >>>> Link to my PGP Key >>>> >>>> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&vi >>>> ew= >>>> art >>>> icle&id=19&Itemid=9> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva [mailto:pedro.ivo@itamaraty.gov.br >>>> <mailto:pedro.ivo@itamaraty.gov.br>] >>>> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:59 AM >>>> To: 'Schaefer, Brett' <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org >>>> <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>; s18(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:s18@icann.org> >>>> Subject: [S18] RES: Slight variation on FInn's text >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Brett, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you for the proposed text, but as it was stated during the >>>> call, the language below does not grant the GAC any flexibility to >>>> determine the definition of consensus in its decision-making >>>> process for the advice to be given to the Board (and for which the >>>> Board needs to try to find a mutually acceptable solution). As you >>>> know, this flexibility is essential for the GAC, as it was stated in the GAC Dublin Communiqué. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I would say that your previous proposal (from yesterday) was more >>>> closer to the spirit of compromise needed in the current stage of >>>> our work. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva >>>> >>>> Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI) >>>> >>>> Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil >>>> >>>> T: + 55 61 2030-6609 <tel:%2B%2055%2061%202030-6609> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva >>>> >>>> Division of Information Society (DI) >>>> >>>> Ministry of External Relations - Brazil >>>> >>>> T: + 55 61 2030-6609 <tel:%2B%2055%2061%202030-6609> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> De: s18-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> >>>> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org <mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org>] Em >>>> nome de Schaefer, Brett Enviada em: sexta-feira, 20 de novembro de >>>> 2015 >>>> 12:10 >>>> Para: s18(a)icann.org <mailto:s18@icann.org> >>>> Assunto: [S18] Slight variation on FInn's text >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As I mentioned in the Adobe chat, here is the slightly modified >>>> text proposed by Finn. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy >>>> matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation >>>> and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board >>>> determines to take an action that is not consistent with the >>>> Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the >>>> Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that >>>> advice. Any GAC advice approved by a GAC consensus, understood to >>>> mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in >>>> the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote >>>> of two-thirds (2/3) of the Board. Any advice approved by the GAC >>>> with objections from a very small minority of GAC members, but >>>> falling short of consensus, may be rejected by a majority vote of >>>> the Board. If the Board rejects GAC consensus advice, the >>>> Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in >>>> good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually >>>> acceptable solution. Governmental Advisory Committee should ensure that their advice to the Board is clear. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The reason for this is that the Board should not be put in the >>>> position of negotiating between various GAC members. It should be >>>> up to the GAC to present a consensus position before the Board >>>> should be required to try, in good faith and in a timely and >>>> efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> Brett Schaefer >>>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory >>>> Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for >>>> National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation >>>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE >>>> Washington, DC 20002 >>>> 202-608-6097 <tel:202-608-6097> >>>> heritage.org <http://heritage.org> <http://heritage.org/> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> S18 mailing list >>>> S18(a)icann.org <mailto:S18@icann.org> >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> S18 mailing list >>>> S18(a)icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 >>> >>> --- >>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> S18 mailing list >>> S18(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 >> _______________________________________________ >> S18 mailing list >> S18(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 >> _______________________________________________ >> S18 mailing list >> S18(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 > > -- > > Matthew Shears > Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for > Democracy & Technology mshears(a)cdt.org > + 44 771 247 2987 > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > S18 mailing list > S18(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18

1 0

Slight variation on FInn's text
by Schaefer, Brett Nov. 23, 2015

Nov. 23, 2015

As I mentioned in the Adobe chat, here is the slightly modified text proposed by Finn. The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any GAC advice approved by a GAC consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Board. Any advice approved by the GAC with objections from a very small minority of GAC members, but falling short of consensus, may be rejected by a majority vote of the Board. If the Board rejects GAC consensus advice, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. Governmental Advisory Committee should ensure that their advice to the Board is clear. The reason for this is that the Board should not be put in the position of negotiating between various GAC members. It should be up to the GAC to present a consensus position before the Board should be required to try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>

11 15

Document for ST18 call Nov 20
by Mathieu Weill Nov. 23, 2015

Nov. 23, 2015

Dear Colleagues, During our last call we had discussed elaborating on the Denmark proposal. Since then, there has been significant exchange on the list, with interesting new arguments being developed. To facilitate todays call at 13UTC (planned for 90 minutes this time) you will find attached a document that focuses on proposed edits we have received on the Denmark proposal, as well as, on page 2 a short table summarizing the different options regarding the staggered Board decision threshold approaches. We look forward to a fruitful call. -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

8 11

Nov 23 Call
by Mathieu Weill Nov. 23, 2015

Nov. 23, 2015

Dear Colleagues, In anticipation of our call, a reminder that the below proposal will be discussed during this call. We have also received : - Draft amendment from Brett, which was met with some support and some resistance - Feedback about a potential additional provision for “clear rationale of GAC advice” - Phil Corwin’s additional input regarding the inclusion of the clause “issues related to matters under deliberation or implementation within the ICANN community” in the opening sentence Best Mathieu De : s18-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Mark Carvell Envoyé : vendredi 20 novembre 2015 19:48 À : Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Cc : s18(a)icann.org; Nick Shorey Objet : [S18] European proposal for ST18 text It was an attachment to my previous e-mail but here also: ST18 European GAC Members’ Proposal (20 November 2015) The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any GAC advice approved by a full GAC consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Board. Any advice approved by the GAC by consensus with objections only from a very small minority of GAC members, may be rejected by a majority vote of the Board. In both instances, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. Mark Mark Carvell Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell(a)culture.gov.uk tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062 On 20 November 2015 at 18:43, Mark Carvell <mark.carvell(a)culture.gov.uk> wrote: Pedro + ST18 colleagues I agree we made very good progress towards a solution today but we will all need to review carefully especially in view of the politically sensitive nature of the core issues here. In the light of today's call, Anders, Finn, Gema, Jorge and I as members of the European group have have had a go at revising the text to reflect what we believe is the common ground of today's discussion, if not yet final agreement. Following a consultation with Thomas Schneider in his capacity as GAC Chair, I now submit this on behalf of the participating European governments to the ST18 Group as a basis for discussion ahead of the call on Monday. We look forward very much to hearing views online and indeed on the Monday call. In the meantime, I hope everyone on ST18 has a great, stress-free weekend! Best regards Mark Mark Carvell United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANNGlobal Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell(a)culture.gov.uk tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062 <tel:%2B44%20%280%29%2020%207211%206062> On 20 November 2015 at 18:14, Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva <pedro.ivo(a)itamaraty.gov.br> wrote: Dear Paul, Thanks for your email. I amicably ask you to refrain from inferring more than what is literally indicated in my email. My objection is with regards Brett's amendment to Finn's text. For the reasons stated below. With regards to Finn's original proposal (without Brett's addition), Brazil is still evaluating the language. My immediate reaction is that it goes beyond the Dublin Communiqué, but still deserves a closer analysis. I am sure some other countries within the GAC are in the same position. Kind regards, Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI) Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 <tel:%2B%2055%2061%202030-6609> Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Division of Information Society (DI) Ministry of External Relations - Brazil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 <tel:%2B%2055%2061%202030-6609> -----Mensagem original----- De: Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com] Enviada em: sexta-feira, 20 de novembro de 2015 13:28 Para: Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva; 'Schaefer, Brett'; s18(a)icann.org Assunto: RE: [S18] RES: Slight variation on FInn's text BTW, you do realize, don’t you Pedro that you are rejecting not just Brett’s text, but Finn’s proposal as well. Does this not suggest that perhaps your view is isolated even within the GAC? Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl…> &view=article&id=19&Itemid=9> From: Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva [mailto:pedro.ivo@itamaraty.gov.br] Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:59 AM To: 'Schaefer, Brett' <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org>; s18(a)icann.org Subject: [S18] RES: Slight variation on FInn's text Dear Brett, Thank you for the proposed text, but as it was stated during the call, the language below does not grant the GAC any flexibility to determine the definition of consensus in its decision-making process for the advice to be given to the Board (and for which the Board needs to try to find a mutually acceptable solution). As you know, this flexibility is essential for the GAC, as it was stated in the GAC Dublin Communiqué. I would say that your previous proposal (from yesterday) was more closer to the spirit of compromise needed in the current stage of our work. Regards, Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI) Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 <tel:%2B%2055%2061%202030-6609> Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Division of Information Society (DI) Ministry of External Relations - Brazil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 <tel:%2B%2055%2061%202030-6609> De: s18-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Schaefer, Brett Enviada em: sexta-feira, 20 de novembro de 2015 12:10 Para: s18(a)icann.org Assunto: [S18] Slight variation on FInn's text As I mentioned in the Adobe chat, here is the slightly modified text proposed by Finn. The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any GAC advice approved by a GAC consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Board. Any advice approved by the GAC with objections from a very small minority of GAC members, but falling short of consensus, may be rejected by a majority vote of the Board. If the Board rejects GAC consensus advice, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. Governmental Advisory Committee should ensure that their advice to the Board is clear. The reason for this is that the Board should not be put in the position of negotiating between various GAC members. It should be up to the GAC to present a consensus position before the Board should be required to try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org <http://heritage.org/> _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18

1 0

European proposal for ST18 text
by Mark Carvell Nov. 20, 2015

Nov. 20, 2015

It was an attachment to my previous e-mail but here also: *ST18 European GAC Members’ Proposal * (20 November 2015) The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any GAC advice approved by a full GAC consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Board. Any advice approved by the GAC by consensus with objections only from a very small minority of GAC members, may be rejected by a majority vote of the Board. In both instances, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. Mark Mark Carvell Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell(a)culture.gov.uk tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062 On 20 November 2015 at 18:43, Mark Carvell <mark.carvell(a)culture.gov.uk> wrote: > Pedro + ST18 colleagues > > I agree we made very good progress towards a solution today but we will > all need to review carefully especially in view of the politically > sensitive nature of the core issues here. > > In the light of today's call, Anders, Finn, Gema, Jorge and I as members > of the European group have have had a go at revising the text to reflect > what we believe is the common ground of today's discussion, if not yet > final agreement. > > Following a consultation with Thomas Schneider in his capacity as GAC > Chair, I now submit this on behalf of the participating European > governments to the ST18 Group as a basis for discussion ahead of the call > on Monday. We look forward very much to hearing views online and indeed on > the Monday call. > > In the meantime, I hope everyone on ST18 has a great, stress-free weekend! > > Best regards > > Mark > > Mark Carvell > United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of > ICANN > > Global Internet Governance Policy > Department for Culture, Media and Sport > mark.carvell(a)culture.gov.uk > tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062 > > On 20 November 2015 at 18:14, Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva < > pedro.ivo(a)itamaraty.gov.br> wrote: > >> Dear Paul, >> >> Thanks for your email. I amicably ask you to refrain from inferring more >> than what is literally indicated in my email. >> >> My objection is with regards Brett's amendment to Finn's text. For the >> reasons stated below. >> >> With regards to Finn's original proposal (without Brett's addition), >> Brazil is still evaluating the language. My immediate reaction is that it >> goes beyond the Dublin Communiqué, but still deserves a closer analysis. I >> am sure some other countries within the GAC are in the same position. >> >> 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: Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com] >> Enviada em: sexta-feira, 20 de novembro de 2015 13:28 >> Para: Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva; 'Schaefer, Brett'; s18(a)icann.org >> Assunto: RE: [S18] RES: Slight variation on FInn's text >> >> BTW, you do realize, don’t you Pedro that you are rejecting not just >> Brett’s text, but Finn’s proposal as well. Does this not suggest that >> perhaps your view is isolated even within the GAC? >> >> >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> Paul Rosenzweig >> >> paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com <mailto: >> paul.rosenzweigesq(a)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=articl… >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva [mailto:pedro.ivo@itamaraty.gov.br] >> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:59 AM >> To: 'Schaefer, Brett' <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org>; s18(a)icann.org >> Subject: [S18] RES: Slight variation on FInn's text >> >> >> >> Dear Brett, >> >> >> >> Thank you for the proposed text, but as it was stated during the call, >> the language below does not grant the GAC any flexibility to determine the >> definition of consensus in its decision-making process for the advice to be >> given to the Board (and for which the Board needs to try to find a mutually >> acceptable solution). As you know, this flexibility is essential for the >> GAC, as it was stated in the GAC Dublin Communiqué. >> >> >> >> I would say that your previous proposal (from yesterday) was more closer >> to the spirit of compromise needed in the current stage of our work. >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> De: s18-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de >> Schaefer, Brett Enviada em: sexta-feira, 20 de novembro de 2015 12:10 >> Para: s18(a)icann.org >> Assunto: [S18] Slight variation on FInn's text >> >> >> >> As I mentioned in the Adobe chat, here is the slightly modified text >> proposed by Finn. >> >> >> >> The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy >> matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and >> adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take >> an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee >> advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it >> decided not to follow that advice. Any GAC advice approved by a GAC >> consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by >> general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be >> rejected by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Board. Any advice approved by >> the GAC with objections from a very small minority of GAC members, but >> falling short of consensus, may be rejected by a majority vote of the >> Board. If the Board rejects GAC consensus advice, the Governmental Advisory >> Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and >> efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. Governmental >> Advisory Committee should ensure that their advice to the Board is clear. >> >> >> >> The reason for this is that the Board should not be put in the position >> of negotiating between various GAC members. It should be up to the GAC to >> present a consensus position before the Board should be required to try, in >> good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually >> acceptable solution. >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Brett Schaefer >> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs >> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security >> and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation >> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE >> Washington, DC 20002 >> 202-608-6097 >> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> S18 mailing list >> S18(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 >> > >

1 0

Re: [S18] Slight variation on FInn's text
by James Gannon Nov. 20, 2015

Nov. 20, 2015

I think this is very much in line with the Dublin Communique. I would hope that its looked upon favourably by the GAC members involved as an indicator of strong willingness to compromise and come to consensus between all of us. -James From: <s18-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Friday 20 November 2015 at 2:10 p.m. To: "s18(a)icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org>" <s18(a)icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org>> Subject: [S18] Slight variation on FInn's text As I mentioned in the Adobe chat, here is the slightly modified text proposed by Finn. The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any GAC advice approved by a GAC consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Board. Any advice approved by the GAC with objections from a very small minority of GAC members, but falling short of consensus, may be rejected by a majority vote of the Board. If the Board rejects GAC consensus advice, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. Governmental Advisory Committee should ensure that their advice to the Board is clear. The reason for this is that the Board should not be put in the position of negotiating between various GAC members. It should be up to the GAC to present a consensus position before the Board should be required to try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. ________________________________ BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>

1 0

Fw: ST18 Meeting | 13:00 UTC | Friday, 20 November
by Phil Corwin Nov. 20, 2015

Nov. 20, 2015

I am in Panama. Internet in my hotel is down and I have not received my promised call out. Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. 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: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 8:00 AM To: Brenda Brewer Subject: Re: ST18 Meeting | 13:00 UTC | Friday, 20 November Where is my call??? Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. 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: Brenda Brewer Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 12:55 PM To: Phil Corwin Subject: RE: ST18 Meeting | 13:00 UTC | Friday, 20 November Thank you Phil. A dial out to you will be arranged for the ST18 Meeting on Friday, 20 November. Best, Brenda From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 10:55 AM To: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: ST18 Meeting | 13:00 UTC | Friday, 20 November Importance: High I am In Panama with limited connectivity. Therefore I need to be called to participate. I can be reached at +507-294-4000 and am in room 2217. This method worked today for SO/AC and GNSO Council calls. Please confirm that you have received this and that I will be called. Thanks! 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 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ From: Brenda Brewer [brenda.brewer(a)icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 9:44 AM Required: Brenda Brewer; leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>; rickert(a)anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; megan.richards(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:megan.richards@ec.europa.eu>; Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>; Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; mark.carvell(a)culture.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk>; malcolm(a)linx.net<mailto:malcolm@linx.net>; paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; pedro.ivo(a)itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:pedro.ivo@itamaraty.gov.br>; finpet(a)erst.dk<mailto:finpet@erst.dk>; Roelof.Meijer(a)sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>; olgacavalli(a)gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>; andharr(a)amazon.com<mailto:andharr@amazon.com>; mshears(a)cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>; ceo(a)auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>; langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>; FAlexander(a)ntia.doc.gov<mailto:FAlexander@ntia.doc.gov>; tom(a)acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au>; RPEREZGA(a)minetur.es<mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>; komaitis(a)isoc.org<mailto:komaitis@isoc.org>; jukacz(a)erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>; markus_kummer(a)bluewin.ch<mailto:markus_kummer@bluewin.ch>; david.martinon(a)diplomatie.gouv.fr<mailto:david.martinon@diplomatie.gouv.fr>; Samantha Eisner; Phil Corwin; kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>; izumi(a)nic.ad.jp<mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp>; avri(a)ella.com<mailto:avri@ella.com>; erika(a)erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>; Lousewies Vanderlaan; Grace Abuhamad; Theresa Swinehart; Alice Jansen; Hillary Jett; turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> Subject: ST18 Meeting | 13:00 UTC | Friday, 20 November When: Friday, November 20, 2015 8:00 AM-9:30 AM. Where: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ ST-18 Meeting #3: Friday, 20 November 13:00 -14:30 UTC For international time zones see here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=ST-18+Subgroup+Mee…>. Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ The dial-in details are below - please let me know if you require a dial-out. _______________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: ST18 For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. _______________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: COUNTRY Number Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA – A 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA – B 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA 000-800-852-1268 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702

1 0

Recap of inputs received
by Mathieu Weill Nov. 20, 2015

Nov. 20, 2015

Dear colleagues, Thank you again for the robust discussions and constructive inputs you have shared on the list. In anticipation of our call in less than two hours, please find attached : - A version of the summary document including comments and additions trying to capture all the valuable inputs we have received on the list - A bracket version showing the various amendments or options received and discussed about the Denmark proposal During our call today, we will attempt to narrow down the list of options. -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

11 21

ST18
by MARTINON David Nov. 19, 2015

Nov. 19, 2015

As I said yesterday during the call, entering into a discussion about percentages and numbers is a dead end. Upon whom exactly would the percentage be applied ? What wouldl be the criteria ? How do we define the membership of GAC ? Are international organisations, such as the African Union or the European Union, to be considered as full members ? Do we count the countries represented in the room only ? then what is the quorum ? how to count those who participate remotely ? How do we check that they do participate ? Why 97% ? Where does this number come from ? It is a very complicated process to set rules for voting. This is why we kept saying that the GAC shall be in control of them. Because they carry a lot of constraints, interests and collateral consequences. It will take the GAC a lot of time to decide on them. If the CCWG really wants to make a proposal on this, nobody knows when the Pandora box will be closed again. Regards, David Martinon Ambassadeur pour la cyberdiplomatie et l'économie numérique/Ambassador for Cyberdiplomacy and the Digital Economy +33 1 43 17 81 14

6 5

Re: [S18] ST 18 - possible common ground proposal
by Finn Petersen Nov. 18, 2015

Nov. 18, 2015

Dear colleagues, I would like point out the implication of the footnote Denmark has proposed for consensus. 1. The footnote does not restrict the GAC's ability to change the GAC's current definition of consensus. 2. Should the GAC in the future change its definition of consensus in OP47 then the footnote defines the degree of consensus (within a very tight picket fence) to which the ICANN Board is obliged to seek a mutually acceptable solution with the GAC. 3. On the one hand, the footnote aims to ensure that the Board is not put in a position where it has to seek a mutually acceptable solution that goes against the views of a little more than "a very small Minority" in the GAC. In other words, the Board of Directors is only required to find a mutually acceptable solution when a "SuperSuperSuper Majority" (or almost all) of GAC members are behind. 4. On the other hand, the footnote ensures that the GAC's decision making is not captured by "a very small Minority" in the GAC. N.B A 2/3 majority could not be defined as consensus - far from it. I hope this is helpful. Best, Julia and Finn GAC - DK Kind regards Finn Petersen Director of International ICT Relations DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 3529 1013 Mobile: +45 2072 7 E-mail: FinPet(a)erst.dk<mailto:FinPet@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: s18-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Julia Katja Wolman Sendt: 16. november 2015 11:19 Til: 's18(a)icann.org' Emne: [S18] ST 18 - possible common ground proposal Dear Colleagues, At the IGF in Joao Pessoa several GAC members discussed a way forward with regard to Stress test 18 with the belief that finding common ground is of crucial importance and achievable. As a result, please find attached a friendly "common ground" proposal for Bylaw amendment for your kind consideration. This common ground proposal builds on the Brazilian proposal and aims at integrating the feedback and alternatives from the CCWG list discussions, including an attempt to address the concerns with regard to "consensus". We kindly suggest that this common ground proposal be presented and discussed at the ST 18 call later today. Best regards, Finn and Julia GAC DK Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz(a)erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email.

3 4

Re: [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal
by Julia Katja Wolman Nov. 17, 2015

Nov. 17, 2015

Dear colleagues, Adding to Jorge and Rafael's comments, here are a few remarks from our side trying to address some of the comments on the ST18 list: 1) The " common ground" proposal was carefully drafted, in good faith, to address the different concerns expressed in the discussions - both in the CCWG Accountability and the GAC, including taking into account the GAC Dublin Communiqué and the elements to consider herein, which was drafted on the basis of serious discussions and concessions in the GAC. As pointed out by Jorge and others, one element in the GAC Dublin Communiqué is the call for flexibility with regard to the ACs ability to define consensus. The language of the footnote was carefully chosen to balance the different positions. That balance, we believe, is best achieved by not positively defining what consensus is but instead describing what it is not. The wording in the proposal cautiously indemnifies the room for maneuver with regard to AC consensus decision-making but still has an inbuilt flexibility that does not constrain the AC's to unanimity. 2) Another element is to avoid that the GAC is singled out and this is reflected by making the text regarding the Boards obligation to duly taking into account advice from ACs generic. Moreover, as other colleagues pointed out on the ST 18 call yesterday, this generic text also addresses the ATRT recommendation stating that the Board should take advice from all ACs duly into account. 3) With regard to Paul's earlier comments, the words "try", and "to seek" should be seen as equivalent and as other colleagues have pointed out we could certainly find better wording if needed. With regard to the proposal that requires 2/3 of the Board to be against an advice in order for the Board to reject it, this has to be seen in the larger context that we are in. We are considering the future framework as a whole and there are other safeguards being introduced, including a narrow Mission Statement and a commitment for consensus in the Bylaws. This proposal also underlines the Board's commitment to take AC advice duly into account. One could also turn the argument around. In practice the Board has rejected GAC consensus advice on the basis of consensus and as such the 2/3 requirement would "allow" that the Board could reject a consensus advice based on a 2/3 majority decision and not consensus with "the blessing" of the GAC as the GAC itself was among those that proposed this threshold. We sincerely hope that colleagues will consider this proposal in the spirit of reaching a constructive compromise. Best, Finn and Julia -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: s18-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Perez Galindo, Rafael Sendt: 17. november 2015 10:28 Til: Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org Cc: s18(a)icann.org Emne: Re: [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal Let me chime in to support Jorge's remarks. In order to achieve a language that satisfies us all and complies with the GAC Dublin consensus communiqué, we have to walk a thin line between two points that should be avoided: imposition of unanimity (that could yield to capture) and possibility of majority rule (that should not be permitted). Julia's proposal has been carefully crafted to walk that line. And let me add that it is a good faith proposal, which tries to address everyone's concerns, including the ones that originated the inclusion of this Stress Test in the first place, and which constitutes already a major concession for many governments. Apart from needed language tweaking (such as replacing "seek" for "try to find" as Paul R. suggested), I kindly call and invite you to read Julia's proposal spirit, and reflect on whether you could live with such a common ground language, in order to put this to bed and move forward with the overall CCWG proposal. Warm regards, Rafael GAC_SPAIN -----Mensaje original----- De: s18-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch Enviado el: martes, 17 de noviembre de 2015 7:00 Para: sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org CC: s18(a)icann.org Asunto: Re: [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal Dear Steve In what is the third variation different from the second? How would the two variations answer and adress the call for flexibility for ACs in defining consensus contained in the GAC Dublin consensus? I feel they do not and that the solution is not to impose one definition, but to find a narrow path between unanimity (which should not be imposed) and majority rule (which should not be allowed). Without that narrow line, any AC to which such a definition would apply would easily be captured by one single delegate/member or a very tiny minority, without any possibility to react to such a situation. This narrow line is in my view achieved in Julia's proposal. Hence I urge colleagues to work on that proposal, which already channels significantly the principle of flexibility on defining consensus called by the GAC in Dublin. regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 17.11.2015 um 00:37 schrieb Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>: Mathieu asked me to document some variations on the Common Ground proposal that circulated before today's ST18 call. I showed the original text in column 1 of the attached 1-page document. I added three "bracketed" variations on using a footnote, per discussion on today's call: The 1st bracketed text is a close copy of Denmark's original. The 2nd bracketed text documents the GAC's present practice for consensus. The 3rd bracketed text indicates GAC consensus matches whatever the UN is practicing as "consensus" at that time. - Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206 <Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.pdf> <Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.docx> _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18(a)icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18

6 15

ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal
by Steve DelBianco Nov. 17, 2015

Nov. 17, 2015

Mathieu asked me to document some variations on the Common Ground proposal that circulated before today’s ST18 call. I showed the original text in column 1 of the attached 1-page document. I added three “bracketed” variations on using a footnote, per discussion on today’s call: The 1st bracketed text is a close copy of Denmark’s original. The 2nd bracketed text documents the GAC’s present practice for consensus. The 3rd bracketed text indicates GAC consensus matches whatever the UN is practicing as “consensus” at that time. — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206

10 15

Updated summary document - for comments
by Mathieu Weill Nov. 17, 2015

Nov. 17, 2015

Dear Colleagues, Thanks again for the very constructive call yesterday. As discussed, you will find attached an updated document for your review and comments. Changes include : - The previous 4th column option has been replaced with the Denmark proposal, as amended during our call - An additional consideration taken into account is whether the defined rules apply to all ACs In addition to the call for edits on the Denmark proposal which was circulated a few hours ago by Steve, please provide your comments on the table on section 4, which attemps to map how each proposal may address differently the various requirements and considerations. We need to make sure we share the same perspective on this to avoid any misunderstanding. In order to provide an updated version in time for our Wednesday call (precise time and invitation will be circulated shortly) I would appreciate your feedback by 17 nov 9 UTC (24 hours from now). Best, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

5 4

ST 18 - possible common ground proposal
by Julia Katja Wolman Nov. 16, 2015

Nov. 16, 2015

Dear Colleagues, At the IGF in Joao Pessoa several GAC members discussed a way forward with regard to Stress test 18 with the belief that finding common ground is of crucial importance and achievable. As a result, please find attached a friendly "common ground" proposal for Bylaw amendment for your kind consideration. This common ground proposal builds on the Brazilian proposal and aims at integrating the feedback and alternatives from the CCWG list discussions, including an attempt to address the concerns with regard to "consensus". We kindly suggest that this common ground proposal be presented and discussed at the ST 18 call later today. Best regards, Finn and Julia GAC DK Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz(a)erst.dk www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email.

7 8

Agenda and document for ST18 call - Nov 16 16UTC
by Mathieu Weill Nov. 16, 2015

Nov. 16, 2015

Dear Colleagues, With apologies about the late communication of the documents, please find below an agenda for our subgroup call, taking place in a few hours. Attached is an attempt to recap discussions and laying out the options being discussed. The document is an attempt to structure our discussions, will be displayed and discussed during the call. Apologies if there are some inaccuracies in there, weve been trying to recap things but may have misinterpreted. You can hold the co chairs accountable for that ;-) Looking forward to talking to you all in a few hours. Best Mathieu AGENDA 1. Welcome, Roll call (5') 2. Scope of the subgroup : (10') Exchange to establish a common understanding of the purpose of the subgroup which was defined in call #67 as : - Assess existing options, areas of agreement / disagreement - Provide full CCWG with short, clear summary of views and options - Report to the CCWG so that consensus can be assessed around the ST18 proposal 3. Review of options that have been considered so far (10') Determine which options have been documented and should be assessed by the subgroup. Identify source of description of the options for documentation. 4. Requirements (20') Based on discussions on the lists and at the IGF, establish a list of agreed requirements and areas of disagreement. A proposal to that effect was mentioned in CCWG call #67 and in the attached document. 5. Initial comparison of proposals in relation with requirements (10') Introduce tool to compare how proposals meet requirements and areas of disagreement. Participants will be requested to provide comments after the call. 6. Conclusion and next steps (5') -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

7 8

Launch of ST18 Mailing list
by Brenda Brewer Nov. 14, 2015

Nov. 14, 2015

Dear all, Welcome to the ST-18 mailing list and thank you for volunteering to participate. Mailing list: <mailto:s18@icann.org> s18(a)icann.org Mailing list archives: <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/private/s18/> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/private/s18/ Wiki subgroup page: <https://community.icann.org/x/ertYAw> https://community.icann.org/x/ertYAw List of volunteers to date: Steve DelBianco Cheryl Langdon-Orr Megan Richards Brett Schaefer Jorge Cancio Greg Shatan Mark Carvell Malcolm Hutty Paul Rosenzweig Pedro Ivo Ferraz Da Silva Finn Petersen Roelof Meijer Olga Cavalli Andrew Harris Matthew Shears Chris Disspain Fiona Alexander (observer) The CCWG Co-Chairs and staff support team will also be part of the subgroup. Kind regards, Brenda From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 9:01 AM To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Stress test 18 - Follow-up call #67 Dear all, As indicated on call #67 today, we are forming a subgroup tasked with assessing the state of play and the various options on Stress Test 18 language, so that the CCWG can decide how to proceed in the third CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 proposal. It is expected that this subgroup will need to produce outcome for CCWG-ACCT consideration in a very timely fashion. A call to kick off discussions will be held next week, exact date to be disclosed soon. The call will be recorded and transcribed. Please note that a mailing-list will also be set up. We invite you to express your interest to join the group by sending a notification to <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> acct-staff(a)icann.org preferably by today end of business day. Thank you Best regards Mathieu, Thomas, León

1 0

test
by Brenda Brewer Nov. 13, 2015

Nov. 13, 2015

test

1 0