My final contribution of the morning is to suggest that the proper answer might be in the compromise proposed by Brett -- the Board is bound to follow full UN consensus advice ("no objection") absent a 2/3 rejection but can reject by majority non-UN consensus advice. That is an increase in GAC authority and makes me uneasy, but it might be acceptable ... Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@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 -----Original Message----- From: Schaefer, Brett [mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 7:13 AM To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Cc: s18@icann.org Subject: Re: [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal Mathieu, That was one suggestion, I do not think that that was agreed by everyone. There were several options discussed and raised during the call and in the comments to the second proposal. One was the status quo, which I am still not convinced is a problem for anyone other than a subset of the GAC. A second was proffered by Paul and I that the GAC should have to give up its privileged advisory authority if It wanted to participate in the Empowered Community. A third 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. I also suggested a compromise where true consensus GAC advice could only be rejected by more than two-thirds of the Board, but lesser consensus advice would remain at the majority threshold. In short, there are many options not the rather binary set presented in the summary that are all based on the GAC proposal. Pardon, but this seems to be pressing forward that option to try and appease the GAC. 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<http://heritage.org/> On Nov 17, 2015, at 3:23 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Thanks a lot Steve, and thanks to the first commenters. As a reminder, the conclusion from our call is that, following Jorge’s suggestion, we would welcome proposals to adjust / enhance the Denmark proposal. We will do our best to incorporate proposals received by 9 UTC Wednesday in time for our next call. Best Mathieu De : s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Steve DelBianco Envoyé : mardi 17 novembre 2015 00:22 À : s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Objet : [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal 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 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18