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

From: 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
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
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************

_______________________________________________
S18 mailing list
S18@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18

-- 

Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology 
mshears@cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987 

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com