While I tend to think that seek to find is not an obligation to reach a solution I would be interested Julia, in knowing why you changed the language from the current version? If, as I believe, they are equivalent, what justifies the change? If they are not equivalent in your mind, what do you see as the difference? Regarding the 2/3rd requirement to reject consensus advice, I have read your justification. I wonder if you could articulate why you think that the CCWG should adopt a proposal that was rejected by the community less than a year ago? Regards Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key From: Roelof Meijer [mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 8:52 AM To: Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk>; s18@icann.org Subject: Re: [S18] ST 18 - possible common ground proposal 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> | <http://www.sidn.nl/> www.sidn.nl From: <s18-bounces@icann.org <mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> > Date: maandag 16 november 2015 11:19 To: "s18@icann.org <mailto:s18@icann.org> " <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> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk <http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email.