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 2/3^rd 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

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

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

From: <s18-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk>
Date: maandag 16 november 2015 11:19
To: "s18@icann.org" <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
www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk

MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH

P Please consider the environment before printing this email.