November 2015 - S18 - lists.icann.org

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