Along that line, here is my compromise proposal as inline edits to the bylaws:

 

“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, which consistent with GAC Operating Principle 47  is 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, but falling short of consensus, may be rejected by a majority vote of the Board. In both instances, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.”

 

 

 

Jorge,

 

I’m asking it in the interest of illustrating the full range of options proposed. The current bylaws are present, the 1^st and 2^nd CCWG draft language is present, Brazil’s option is present, Denmark’s is present. But the other proposals are pretty much relegated to notations. I think all proposals should be represented for discussion in similar fashion.

 

Best,

 

Brett

 

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

 

Dear Brett

Honestly, I suspect this option would hardly bring us closer to a common understanding.

regards

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 19.11.2015 um 21:16 schrieb Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>:

Mathieu,

Are these the latest versions that we will discuss tomorrow? ST 18 revolves around the GAC’s privileged advisory power and the complications that could arise if the GAC changed its voting procedures. Most of the suggestions involve how the Board should treat GAC advice.

I wanted to highlight that a very different approach was floated in the “other views expressed” portion of the document. Specifically, it was that “the GAC, which has insisted that it be treated the same as the other SOs and ACs, be treated the same as the other non-designating ACs (SSAC and RSSAC) and not have a privileged advisory power.”

This suggestion proposes resolving the ST 18 issue by eliminating the GACs privileged advisory role. Currently, the bylaws state that RRSAC and SSAC responsibilities include making “policy recommendations to the ICANN community and Board.” Giving similar treatment to the GAC could be achieved by eliminating Article XI, Section 2, Item 1(j) entirely. A slight variation could involve moving the middle sentence of Item 1 j to Item 1 i:

Article XI Advisory Committees
Section 2, Item 1. GAC
i. The Governmental Advisory Committee may put issues to the Board directly, either by way of comment or prior advice, or by way of specifically recommending action or new policy development or revision to existing 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.]
j. 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. The Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.

Could this be listed among the options for discussion tomorrow?

Thanks,

Brett



________________________________
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/>
From: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:09 AM
To: s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org>
Subject: [S18] Recap of inputs received

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
mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************

<20151118 ST18 recap comparison_edits .docx>
<20151118 Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.docx>
<20151118 ST18 recap comparison_edits .pdf>
<20151118 Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.pdf>
_______________________________________________
S18 mailing list
S18@icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18