Rafael, With respect, your concerns are a red herring. It is entirely up to the GAC to govern itself. On the majority rule concern, where is that even a possibility as long as Operating Principle 47 remains in place? Operating Principle 47 currently states: The GAC works on the basis of seeking consensus among its membership. Consistent with United Nations practice[1], consensus is understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection. Where consensus is not possible, the Chair shall convey the full range of views expressed by members to the ICANN Board. The unanimity concern is also overblown as demonstrated by the final sentence in OP 47. . The full consensus requirement would not prevent (1) the GAC from sending advice to the Board in the form of options of varying support or (2) the Board from considering those advisory options and approving one. This provision would only clarify how the Board would treat the advice received from the GAC. In that, the only practical effect would be that advice that is not adopted by full consensus would not trigger the Board's obligation to "try , in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution." In fact, the Board could even still decide to do that, it just would not be under an obligation. I have to say, this seems to be an attempt to embed constraints on the Board to reject GAC advice while keeping open the possibility down the line of changing OP 47 so that a majority of the GAC could take advantage of those constraints. 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 -----Original Message----- From: s18-bounces@icann.org [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Perez Galindo, Rafael Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 4:28 AM To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; sdelbianco@netchoice.org Cc: s18@icann.org Subject: 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<mailto: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/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://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<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 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18