Pedro, Who is arguing against this? Our entire discussion is about how the Board should treat the advice it receives, not about how the ACs should define or arrive at their decisions. The GAC can define consensus however it wants, but the Board should only have to try in good faith to reach a compromise if that advice is supported by a full consensus. 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/> From: s18-bounces@icann.org [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 8:13 AM To: 'Perez Galindo, Rafael'; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; sdelbianco@netchoice.org Cc: s18@icann.org Subject: [S18] RES: ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal Hello all, I just wanted to reinforce the importance of the statement put forth in the GAC Dublin Communiqué (resulting from consensus among all GAC members) that: "The need that each and every Advisory Committee should preserve its own autonomy in its definition of consensus;" This should be understood as part of an overall compromise in order to allow for the requirement of consensus be applied to GAC advice. It would therefore not be appropriate to have a solution that would preclude the ACs from defining its own understanding of consensus with regards to advice to be submitted to the ICANN Board. 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: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Perez Galindo, Rafael Enviada em: terça-feira, 17 de novembro de 2015 07:28 Para: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Cc: s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Assunto: Re: [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal Let me chime in to support Jorge's remarks. In order to achieve a language that satisfies us all and complies with the GAC Dublin consensus communiqué, we have to walk a thin line between two points that should be avoided: imposition of unanimity (that could yield to capture) and possibility of majority rule (that should not be permitted). Julia's proposal has been carefully crafted to walk that line. And let me add that it is a good faith proposal, which tries to address everyone's concerns, including the ones that originated the inclusion of this Stress Test in the first place, and which constitutes already a major concession for many governments. Apart from needed language tweaking (such as replacing "seek" for "try to find" as Paul R. suggested), I kindly call and invite you to read Julia's proposal spirit, and reflect on whether you could live with such a common ground language, in order to put this to bed and move forward with the overall CCWG proposal. Warm regards, Rafael GAC_SPAIN -----Mensaje original----- De: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Enviado el: martes, 17 de noviembre de 2015 7:00 Para: sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> CC: s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal Dear Steve In what is the third variation different from the second? How would the two variations answer and adress the call for flexibility for ACs in defining consensus contained in the GAC Dublin consensus? I feel they do not and that the solution is not to impose one definition, but to find a narrow path between unanimity (which should not be imposed) and majority rule (which should not be allowed). Without that narrow line, any AC to which such a definition would apply would easily be captured by one single delegate/member or a very tiny minority, without any possibility to react to such a situation. This narrow line is in my view achieved in Julia's proposal. Hence I urge colleagues to work on that proposal, which already channels significantly the principle of flexibility on defining consensus called by the GAC in Dublin. regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 17.11.2015 um 00:37 schrieb Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org%3cmailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>>: 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/<http://www.NetChoice.org%3chttp:/www.netchoice.org/>> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/<http://blog.netchoice.org%3chttp:/blog.netchoice.org/>> +1.703.615.6206 <Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.pdf> <Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.docx> _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org%3cmailto:S18@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18