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&id=19&Itemid=9>





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