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@culture.gov.uk tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062 On 20 November 2015 at 18:43, Mark Carvell <mark.carvell@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@culture.gov.uk tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062
On 20 November 2015 at 18:14, Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva < 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
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@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@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...
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@heritage.org>; 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
Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
Division of Information Society (DI)
Ministry of External Relations - Brazil
T: + 55 61 2030-6609
De: 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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18