We have not spent much time discussing the "2/3 vote" issue, instead focusing primarily on the "consensus" issue. Since our last call, I have been polling IPC with regard to the proposed 2/3 vote threshold. The response was uniformly negative, some quite vociferously. I also put a proposal very much like Brett's "two tier" structure before the IPC. I don't have as many responses yet on that point, but I didn't get any positive feedback there either. Right now, the only justification for the 2/3 vote appears to be "changed circumstances" or "the GNSO has it." I don't find those sufficient; there needs to be a more compelling reason to move up to a 2/3 vote. However, there might be some room for movement if additional safeguards were put in place. The IPC considered this issue of the 2/3 majority to reject GAC advice before, when we looked at the proposed Bylaws change last August ( http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/pdfWXO... ). While we were not in favor of the amendment in the form which was proposed, we suggested a number of criteria that we considered necessary in order to grant such additional deference to GAC advice:
“1. The advice must be GAC consensus advice. It is not acceptable for such deference to be granted to a lower threshold. This criterion is particularly important in light of the reported ongoing discussions within the GAC to move away from a consensus model to a “majority vote” model. Moreover, such a requirement is roughly analogous to the current ICANN Bylaws requirement that more than two-thirds of the ICANN Board must support a decision to not adopt a PDP recommendation that was approved by a GNSO Supermajority Vote. ICANN Bylaws, Annex A, Section 9(a).
2. The GAC consensus advice must be discussed and drafted and consensus reached in sessions open to all ICANN stakeholders, and must be made public. ICANN’s commitment to accountability and transparency dictates nothing less.
3. The GAC must provide a written rationale for its advice, which must be provided to the ICANN Board and made publicly accessible on the ICANN website at least 21 days before the Board acts on such advice. This requirement remedies a deficiency noted recently by the New gTLD Program Committee in its consideration of GAC advice.
4. The GAC must certify that, in the view of the GAC, the GAC advice does not contravene any national or international law or treaty. This simple certification should preclude questions that have arisen regarding some GAC advice. If the GAC is unable to make such a certification, the ICANN Board should not be required to accord its advice the significant deference represented by the proposed two-thirds threshold."
In the absence of additional safeguards or other compelling changes, I will find it difficult to garner support for an increase to a 2/3 voting threshold. Greg On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
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>:
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'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 <https://e-aj.my.com/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/> From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <https://e-aj.my.com/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 <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>; s18@icann.org <mailto:s18@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/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%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <https://e-aj.my.com/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/> From: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto: s18-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:s18-bounces@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/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%3cmailto: s18@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/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%3cmailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <https://e-aj.my.com/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%3cmailto: S18@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=S18@icann.org>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/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