Then why not stick with the existing language if there is no difference? ________________________________ 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/> __________ On Nov 16, 2015, at 9:15 AM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: Agree with Jorge on this, Roelof. “Seek” is just a short way of saying "Try to find”. From: <s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Date: Monday, November 16, 2015 at 8:56 AM To: "Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>" <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> Cc: "s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org>" <s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [S18] ST 18 - possible common ground proposal Hi Roelof As I understand it "to seek a mutually..." expresses the obligation to "try" and not to find through "to seek", but certainly we could probably even express it better... regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 16.11.2015 um 14:52 schrieb Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl><mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>>: Dear Julia, Thanks for that. I feel however, that there is a kind of inconsistency in the text now, caused by a passage that previous commenters (including GAC members) have indicated. The passage in part 1: Where the Board is required to seek a mutually acceptable solution to an advisory committee's advice if the Board does not follow that advice, the Board is not obliged to seek such a solution if that Advisory Committee's advice was not supported by consensus. I understand “required to seek a mutual acceptable solution” as, bottom line, an obligation for the board to reach such a solution. That might very well be impossible and is a change from the present situation and might result in a dead-lock or endless discussion, both without the possibility for the board (and the community) to move forward. The present situation is described in section 2: 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 The difference is between the obligation to reach a solution (part 1) and the obligation to try in good faith to reach a solution in a timely and efficient manner (part 2). My suggestion is that you use the “try in good faith..etc” of section 2 also in section 1 Cheers, Roelof Meijer SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl><mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl> | www.sidn.nl<http://www.sidn.nl><http://www.sidn.nl/> From: <s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org><mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> Date: maandag 16 november 2015 11:19 To: "s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org><mailto:s18@icann.org>" <s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org><mailto:s18@icann.org>> Subject: [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@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk><http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org><mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18