Dear Rafael, Jorge and all ST18 group colleagues 

I agree: we have dedicated a lot of time in careful consideration of this sensitive issue - in Dublin, in Joao Pessoa and online. We now seem very close to resolving this. It would be an enormous pity if we now lost momentum because of any individual discomfort with a specific element or phrasing in this finely crafted text text, the intent of which is perfectly clear in respect of sustaining the broad consensus-based approach of GAC advice on public interest issues . 

Let us all now on this last lap (I sincerely hope!) work to finalise this in the truly cooperative and trusting multi-stakeholder spirit which has served the CCWG work so well since its vital work started. The CCWG under its supremely effective chairmanship stands as a model of effective multi-stakeholder enhanced cooperation that should be recognised and acknowledged for its achievement by the UN General Assembly. Let us not fail now!

Best regards

Mark 

Mark Carvell
Global Internet Governance Policy
Department for Culture, Media and Sport

On 19 November 2015 at 21:21, Perez Galindo, Rafael <RPEREZGA@minetur.es> wrote:
+1 Jorge 

I feel there is room for consensus if we continue to keep up this constructive attitude.

Rafael

Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.


-------- Original message --------
Date:19/11/2015 22:09 (GMT+01:00)
Subject: Re: [S18] Recap of inputs received

Dear Paul

In fact I feel there could be some commonalities between Julia's very well crafted and nuanced proposal and Brett's approach (his bylaws text with the two thresholds) and would be happy to help in bridging that gap, because honestly I think there is room for doing so.

Certainly a good item for tomorrow's discussion.

regards

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 19.11.2015 um 22:00 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>:


Jorge

So long as the GAC insists on both a non OP 47 consensus and a 2/3 rejection rule we will never reach consensus.  By your standard that idea too should be off the table.

Paul

--
Paul
Sent from myMail app for Android

Thursday, 19 November 2015, 03:47PM -05:00 from <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>:

Dear Brett

We could open up the range of options as widely as desired (GAC abolishment? Board unanimity to reject GAC simple majority advice?...), but I don&apos;t feel that would bring us very much closer to a much needed consensus view.

cordially

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 19.11.2015 um 21:44 schrieb Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</compose?To=Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>>:

Jorge,

I’m asking it in the interest of illustrating the full range of options proposed. The current bylaws are present, the 1st and 2nd 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<http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org/>
From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</compose?To=Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch]
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 3:39 PM
To: Schaefer, Brett
Cc: mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</compose?To=mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>; s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org><mailto:s18@icann.org</compose?To=s18@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [S18] Recap of inputs received

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><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</compose?To=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><http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org/>
From: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org><mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:s18-bounces@icann.org</compose?To=s18%2dbounces@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><mailto:s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org%3cmailto:s18@icann.org</compose?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<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</compose?To=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><mailto:S18@icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org%3cmailto:S18@icann.org</compose?To=S18@icann.org>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
_______________________________________________
S18 mailing list
S18@icann.org</compose?To=S18@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
_______________________________________________
S18 mailing list
S18@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18

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