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 <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
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/> From: s18-bounces@icann.org [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:09 AM 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> Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
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>>: 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/> From: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@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> 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> 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> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
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] Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 3:39 PM To: Schaefer, Brett Cc: mathieu.weill@afnic.fr; 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>>>: 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/<http://heritage.org/>> From: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:s18-bounces@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>> 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>> 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://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18>
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>>: 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> [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>; s18@icann.org<mailto: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>>>: 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>> [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>> 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>> 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://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
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 >>:
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 > [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 >; s18@icann.org<mailto: 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 >>>:
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 >> [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 >> 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 >> 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://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
Dear Paul In fact I feel there could be some commonalities between Julia's very well crafted and nuanced proposal and Brett's approach (his bylaws text with the two thresholds) and would be happy to help in bridging that gap, because honestly I think there is room for doing so. Certainly a good item for tomorrow's discussion. regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 19.11.2015 um 22:00 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>: 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<mailto: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><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</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><http://heritage.org/> From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</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><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</compose?To=mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>; s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org><mailto:s18@icann.org</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<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</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><http://heritage.org/> From: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org><mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:s18-bounces@icann.org</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<mailto:s18@icann.org%3cmailto:s18@icann.org</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<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</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<mailto:S18@icann.org%3cmailto:S18@icann.org</compose?To=S18@icann.org>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org</compose?To=S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
+1 Jorge I feel there is room for consensus if we continue to keep up this constructive attitude. Rafael Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos. -------- Original message -------- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Date:19/11/2015 22:09 (GMT+01:00) To: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com Cc: s18@icann.org Subject: Re: [S18] Recap of inputs received Dear Paul In fact I feel there could be some commonalities between Julia's very well crafted and nuanced proposal and Brett's approach (his bylaws text with the two thresholds) and would be happy to help in bridging that gap, because honestly I think there is room for doing so. Certainly a good item for tomorrow's discussion. regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 19.11.2015 um 22:00 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>: 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<mailto: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><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</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><http://heritage.org/> From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</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><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</compose?To=mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>; s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org><mailto:s18@icann.org</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<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</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><http://heritage.org/> From: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org><mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:s18-bounces@icann.org</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<mailto:s18@icann.org%3cmailto:s18@icann.org</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<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</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<mailto:S18@icann.org%3cmailto:S18@icann.org</compose?To=S18@icann.org>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org</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
Dear Rafael, Jorge and all ST18 group colleagues I agree: we have dedicated a lot of time in careful consideration of this sensitive issue - in Dublin, in Joao Pessoa and online. We now seem very close to resolving this. It would be an enormous pity if we now lost momentum because of any individual discomfort with a specific element or phrasing in this finely crafted text text, the intent of which is perfectly clear in respect of sustaining the broad consensus-based approach of GAC advice on public interest issues . Let us all now on this last lap (I sincerely hope!) work to finalise this in the truly cooperative and trusting multi-stakeholder spirit which has served the CCWG work so well since its vital work started. The CCWG under its supremely effective chairmanship stands as a model of effective multi-stakeholder enhanced cooperation that should be recognised and acknowledged for its achievement by the UN General Assembly. Let us not fail now! Best regards Mark Mark Carvell Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062 On 19 November 2015 at 21:21, Perez Galindo, Rafael <RPEREZGA@minetur.es> wrote:
+1 Jorge
I feel there is room for consensus if we continue to keep up this constructive attitude.
Rafael
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.
-------- Original message -------- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Date:19/11/2015 22:09 (GMT+01:00) To: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com Cc: s18@icann.org Subject: Re: [S18] Recap of inputs received
Dear Paul
In fact I feel there could be some commonalities between Julia's very well crafted and nuanced proposal and Brett's approach (his bylaws text with the two thresholds) and would be happy to help in bridging that gap, because honestly I think there is room for doing so.
Certainly a good item for tomorrow's discussion.
regards
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 19.11.2015 um 22:00 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>:
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<mailto: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><mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</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><http://heritage.org/> From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch
<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</compose?To= Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <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><mailto: mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</compose?To=mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>; s18@icann.org <mailto:s18@icann.org><mailto:s18@icann.org</compose?To=s18@icann.org <s18@icann.org%3E%3Cmailto:s18@icann.org%3C/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<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org% 3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</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><http://heritage.org/> From: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org><mailto: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org% 3cmailto:s18-bounces@icann.org</compose?To=s18%2dbounces@icann.org>>> [ mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org <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<mailto:s18@icann.org%3cmailto:s18@icann.org</compose?To=s18@icann.org <s18@icann.org%3E%3Cmailto:s18@icann.org%3Cmailto:s18@icann.org%3cmailto:s18@icann.org%3C/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<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr% 3cmailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</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<mailto:S18@icann.org%3cmailto:S18@icann.org</compose?To=S18@icann.org <S18@icann.org%3E%3Cmailto:S18@icann.org%3Cmailto:S18@icann.org%3cmailto:S18@icann.org%3C/compose?To=S18@icann.org>
S18 mailing list S18@icann.org</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
_______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
All, As we search for consensus on ST18 and the Board’s obligations relative to GAC advice, I feel obligated to report that some in the RySG have told me, as recently as today, that they would prefer to retain NTIA stewardship rather than secure a transition that elevates the influence of the GAC. This comes from people who are otherwise very supportive of the transition. Here’s an exact quote from a colleague, received today: “Honestly, if anything in the transition leads to greater GAC power, I’d prefer the status quo of U.S. oversight.” In light of these sentiments, as we approach the critical phase of Chartering Organization review and approval, I recommend caution in pushing individual group interests over those of the community at large, lest we risk the greater good. As I said in a previous email, this CCWG effort is about broad community empowerment, not about elevating or expanding the influence of any one group. Are others engaging with their respective communities as we wrestle with this issue? I look forward to finding a consensus recommendation that can receive broad community and Chartering Organization support. Regards, Keith From: s18-bounces@icann.org [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 4:00 PM To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Cc: s18@icann.org Subject: Re: [S18] Recap of inputs received 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<mailto: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</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</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</compose?To=mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>; s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org</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</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</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</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</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</compose?To=S18@icann.org>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org</compose?To=S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
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
"The GNSO has it" is exactly why the GAC should not. GNSO is the policymaking body for domain names. GAC is a body that gives advice on policy, but does not make it. Elevating GAC advice to same status for Board rejection as result of a PDP process would be a fundamental change to ICANN's structure. Speaking of which, I asked on yesterday's call whether GAC could give "advice" on policy matters within the proper scope of a PDP, including creation of binding Consensus Policy, and was told no -- but is there a willingness to put that restriction in the Bylaws? That would obviate a great many concerns. As for Keith's observations, while they have not yet been asked I strongly suspect that the BC would join the IPC and RySG in having major concerns about the impact of proposed changes on ICANN's commitment to private sector leadership. This is also the leading issue, with all others far behind, that could lead to official Washington's rejection of a transition plan. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ From: s18-bounces@icann.org [s18-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 4:52 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig Cc: s18@icann.org Subject: Re: [S18] Recap of inputs received 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<mailto: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<mailto: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><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<tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org<http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org/> From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: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<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><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>; s18@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org<http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org/> From: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org><mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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<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<mailto: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<tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006> mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
You can put NCSG on the list of stakeholder groups with a serious concern about elevating GAC advice as proposed herein. Robin
On Nov 19, 2015, at 2:04 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
"The GNSO has it" is exactly why the GAC should not.
GNSO is the policymaking body for domain names. GAC is a body that gives advice on policy, but does not make it.
Elevating GAC advice to same status for Board rejection as result of a PDP process would be a fundamental change to ICANN's structure. Speaking of which, I asked on yesterday's call whether GAC could give "advice" on policy matters within the proper scope of a PDP, including creation of binding Consensus Policy, and was told no -- but is there a willingness to put that restriction in the Bylaws? That would obviate a great many concerns.
As for Keith's observations, while they have not yet been asked I strongly suspect that the BC would join the IPC and RySG in having major concerns about the impact of proposed changes on ICANN's commitment to private sector leadership. This is also the leading issue, with all others far behind, that could lead to official Washington's rejection of a transition plan.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: s18-bounces@icann.org <mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> [s18-bounces@icann.org <mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org>] on behalf of Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 4:52 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig Cc: s18@icann.org <mailto:s18@icann.org> Subject: Re: [S18] Recap of inputs received
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... <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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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><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 <tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/><http://heritage.org/ <http://heritage.org/>> From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto: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 <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><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>; s18@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/><http://heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>><http://heritage.org/ <http://heritage.org/>> From: s18-bounces@icann.org <mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org><mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org <mailto: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 <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 <mailto: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 <tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006> mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18>
_______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org <mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18>
<>No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org <mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18>
Dear all, As to the 2/3 threshold, I feel Greg essentially makes the points some of us have been making on this list and during the calls: - 2/3 are linked to a commitment of consensus - as in Julia's text, that consensus is bound to very stringent requirements - the Mission of ICANN is being narrowed - any action of ICANN outside the mission is actionable through an IRP, including actions which come as a result of an AC advice - almost any relevant action which is disliked by the community can be subject to community powers - a need for clear rationale is provided for AC advice ... As to the grounds and motivation for such a move, I think we have discussed it. Julia's complete text - as distributed las Monday- includes specific rationale suggestions on this. The GAC considered this very carefully in Dublin and considered it part of a fair balance that a strong commitment to consensus should go hand in hand with a 2/3 recognition. hope this helps Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 19.11.2015 um 22:52 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>: 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<mailto: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<mailto: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><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<tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org<http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org/> From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: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<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><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>; s18@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org<http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org/> From: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org><mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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<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<mailto: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<tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006> mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
I'm a bit confused. I didn't think my email contained any substantial justifications for the 2/3 vote change. But I guess we will discuss this in a few hours. Greg On Friday, November 20, 2015, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear all,
As to the 2/3 threshold, I feel Greg essentially makes the points some of us have been making on this list and during the calls:
- 2/3 are linked to a commitment of consensus - as in Julia's text, that consensus is bound to very stringent requirements - the Mission of ICANN is being narrowed - any action of ICANN outside the mission is actionable through an IRP, including actions which come as a result of an AC advice - almost any relevant action which is disliked by the community can be subject to community powers - a need for clear rationale is provided for AC advice ...
As to the grounds and motivation for such a move, I think we have discussed it. Julia's complete text - as distributed las Monday- includes specific rationale suggestions on this. The GAC considered this very carefully in Dublin and considered it part of a fair balance that a strong commitment to consensus should go hand in hand with a 2/3 recognition.
hope this helps
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 19.11.2015 um 22:52 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <javascript:;><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <javascript:;>>>:
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 <javascript:;><mailto: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <javascript:;>>> 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 <javascript:;><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <javascript:;>>>:
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 <javascript:;><mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <javascript:;>><mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <javascript:;>< 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<tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org<http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org/> From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <javascript:;><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <javascript:;>><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <javascript:;>< https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> [mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <javascript:;><mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <javascript:;>>] Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 3:39 PM To: Schaefer, Brett Cc: mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <javascript:;><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <javascript:;>><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <javascript:;>< https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>; s18@icann.org <javascript:;><mailto:s18@icann.org <javascript:;>><mailto:s18@icann.org <javascript:;><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 <javascript:;><mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <javascript:;>><mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <javascript:;><mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <javascript:;>><mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <javascript:;><mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <javascript:;>>% 3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <javascript:;>< 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<tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org<http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org><; http://heritage.org/> From: s18-bounces@icann.org <javascript:;><mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org <javascript:;>><mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org <javascript:;><mailto: s18-bounces@icann.org <javascript:;>><mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org <javascript:;><mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org <javascript:;>>% 3cmailto:s18-bounces@icann.org <javascript:;>< https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=s18%2dbounces@icann.org>>> [mailto: s18-bounces@icann.org <javascript:;><mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org <javascript:;>>] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:09 AM To: s18@icann.org <javascript:;><mailto:s18@icann.org <javascript:;>
<mailto:s18@icann.org <javascript:;><mailto:s18@icann.org <javascript:;> <mailto:s18@icann.org <javascript:;><mailto:s18@icann.org <javascript:;> %3cmailto:s18@icann.org <javascript:;>< 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<tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006> mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <javascript:;><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <javascript:;>><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <javascript:;><mailto: mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <javascript:;>><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <javascript:;><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <javascript:;>>% 3cmailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <javascript:;>< 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 <javascript:;><mailto:S18@icann.org <javascript:;>><mailto: S18@icann.org <javascript:;><mailto:S18@icann.org <javascript:;>><mailto: S18@icann.org <javascript:;><mailto:S18@icann.org <javascript:;>>% 3cmailto:S18@icann.org <javascript:;>< https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=S18@icann.org>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org <javascript:;><https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
_______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org <javascript:;><mailto:S18@icann.org <javascript:;>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
Dear Greg It recalled some of the "conditions" or "safeguards" the IPR constituency expressed in 2014 for such a move, many of which -especially the consensus requirement- are being met either directly or indirectly through other ccwg improvements Hope this clarifies my email best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 20.11.2015 um 07:10 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>: I'm a bit confused. I didn't think my email contained any substantial justifications for the 2/3 vote change. But I guess we will discuss this in a few hours. Greg On Friday, November 20, 2015, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear all, As to the 2/3 threshold, I feel Greg essentially makes the points some of us have been making on this list and during the calls: - 2/3 are linked to a commitment of consensus - as in Julia's text, that consensus is bound to very stringent requirements - the Mission of ICANN is being narrowed - any action of ICANN outside the mission is actionable through an IRP, including actions which come as a result of an AC advice - almost any relevant action which is disliked by the community can be subject to community powers - a need for clear rationale is provided for AC advice ... As to the grounds and motivation for such a move, I think we have discussed it. Julia's complete text - as distributed las Monday- includes specific rationale suggestions on this. The GAC considered this very carefully in Dublin and considered it part of a fair balance that a strong commitment to consensus should go hand in hand with a 2/3 recognition. hope this helps Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 19.11.2015 um 22:52 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<javascript:;><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<javascript:;>>>: 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<javascript:;><mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<javascript:;>>> 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<javascript:;><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<javascript:;>>>: 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<javascript:;><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<javascript:;>><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<javascript:;><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<tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org<http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org/> From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<javascript:;><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<javascript:;>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<javascript:;><https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<javascript:;><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<javascript:;>>] Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 3:39 PM To: Schaefer, Brett Cc: mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<javascript:;><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<javascript:;>><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<javascript:;><https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>; s18@icann.org<javascript:;><mailto:s18@icann.org<javascript:;>><mailto:s18@icann.org<javascript:;><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<javascript:;><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<javascript:;>><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<javascript:;><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<javascript:;>><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<javascript:;><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<javascript:;>>%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<javascript:;><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<tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org<http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org/> From: s18-bounces@icann.org<javascript:;><mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org<javascript:;>><mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org<javascript:;><mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org<javascript:;>><mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org<javascript:;><mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org<javascript:;>>%3cmailto:s18-bounces@icann.org<javascript:;><https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=s18%2dbounces@icann.org>>> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org<javascript:;><mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org<javascript:;>>] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:09 AM To: s18@icann.org<javascript:;><mailto:s18@icann.org<javascript:;>><mailto:s18@icann.org<javascript:;><mailto:s18@icann.org<javascript:;>><mailto:s18@icann.org<javascript:;><mailto:s18@icann.org<javascript:;>>%3cmailto:s18@icann.org<javascript:;><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<tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006> mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<javascript:;><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<javascript:;>><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<javascript:;><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<javascript:;>><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<javascript:;><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<javascript:;>>%3cmailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<javascript:;><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<javascript:;><mailto:S18@icann.org<javascript:;>><mailto:S18@icann.org<javascript:;><mailto:S18@icann.org<javascript:;>><mailto:S18@icann.org<javascript:;><mailto:S18@icann.org<javascript:;>>%3cmailto:S18@icann.org<javascript:;><https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=S18@icann.org>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org<javascript:;><https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org<javascript:;><mailto:S18@icann.org<javascript:;>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
Sorry but no. The 2/3 requirement is tied to full UN consensus. Anything less is not acceptable. The GAC may use Julia consensus for anything it wants but the Board cannot be bound by less than full consensus. -- Paul Sent from myMail app for Android Friday, 20 November 2015, 00:52AM -05:00 from < Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> :
Dear all,
As to the 2/3 threshold, I feel Greg essentially makes the points some of us have been making on this list and during the calls:
- 2/3 are linked to a commitment of consensus - as in Julia's text, that consensus is bound to very stringent requirements - the Mission of ICANN is being narrowed - any action of ICANN outside the mission is actionable through an IRP, including actions which come as a result of an AC advice - almost any relevant action which is disliked by the community can be subject to community powers - a need for clear rationale is provided for AC advice ...
As to the grounds and motivation for such a move, I think we have discussed it. Julia's complete text - as distributed las Monday- includes specific rationale suggestions on this. The GAC considered this very carefully in Dublin and considered it part of a fair balance that a strong commitment to consensus should go hand in hand with a 2/3 recognition.
hope this helps
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 19.11.2015 um 22:52 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com >>:
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<mailto: 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<mailto: 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 ><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<tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org<http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org/> From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: 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<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 ><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<https: //e-aj.my.com/compose?To=mathieu.weill@afnic.fr >>; s18@icann.org<mailto: 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<mailto: 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<tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org<http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org/> From: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto: s18-bounces@icann.org ><mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto: 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<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<mailto: 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<tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006> mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto: mathieu.weill@afnic.fr ><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto: 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<mailto: 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<mailto: S18@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
Along that line, here is my compromise proposal as inline edits to the bylaws: “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. Any GAC advice approved by a GAC consensus, which consistent with GAC Operating Principle 47 is understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Board. Any advice approved by the GAC, but falling short of consensus, may be rejected by a majority vote of the Board. In both instances, 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.” ________________________________ 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 Schaefer, Brett Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 3:44 PM To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Cc: s18@icann.org Subject: Re: [S18] Recap of inputs received 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> [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>; s18@icann.org<mailto: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>>>: 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/<http://heritage.org/>> From: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:s18-bounces@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>> 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>> 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://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18>
Thanks Brett. This looks good to me….a constructive proposal that could receive support from a broad cross-section of the community. Regards, Keith From: s18-bounces@icann.org [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Schaefer, Brett Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 3:54 PM To: Schaefer, Brett; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Cc: s18@icann.org Subject: Re: [S18] Recap of inputs received Along that line, here is my compromise proposal as inline edits to the bylaws: “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. Any GAC advice approved by a GAC consensus, which consistent with GAC Operating Principle 47 is understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Board. Any advice approved by the GAC, but falling short of consensus, may be rejected by a majority vote of the Board. In both instances, 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.” ________________________________ 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> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Schaefer, Brett Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 3:44 PM To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Subject: Re: [S18] Recap of inputs received 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> [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>; s18@icann.org<mailto: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>>>: 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>> [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>> 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>> 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://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
Thanks Keith. I included “consistent with GAC Operating Principle 47” so that people understood where the text came from. Since OP 47 can be changed by the GAC, which could lead to confusion down the road, the clause could be replaced by “consistent with United Nations practice”, which is how it is currently stated in OP 47. Alternatively, it could just be shortened to which is understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection. ________________________________ 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: Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 4:06 PM To: Schaefer, Brett; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Cc: s18@icann.org Subject: RE: [S18] Recap of inputs received Thanks Brett. This looks good to me….a constructive proposal that could receive support from a broad cross-section of the community. Regards, Keith From: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Schaefer, Brett Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 3:54 PM To: Schaefer, Brett; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Subject: Re: [S18] Recap of inputs received Along that line, here is my compromise proposal as inline edits to the bylaws: “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. Any GAC advice approved by a GAC consensus, which consistent with GAC Operating Principle 47 is understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Board. Any advice approved by the GAC, but falling short of consensus, may be rejected by a majority vote of the Board. In both instances, 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.” ________________________________ 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> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Schaefer, Brett Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 3:44 PM To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Subject: Re: [S18] Recap of inputs received 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> [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>; s18@icann.org<mailto: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>>>: 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/<http://heritage.org/>> From: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:s18-bounces@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>> 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>> 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://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18>
I think that is right - an option that should be seriously considered. On 19/11/2015 21:06, Drazek, Keith wrote:
Thanks Brett.
This looks good to me….a constructive proposal that could receive support from a broad cross-section of the community.
Regards,
Keith
*From:*s18-bounces@icann.org [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Schaefer, Brett *Sent:* Thursday, November 19, 2015 3:54 PM *To:* Schaefer, Brett; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch *Cc:* s18@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [S18] Recap of inputs received
Along that line, here is my compromise proposal as inline edits to the bylaws:
/“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. *_Any GAC advice approved by a GAC consensus, which consistent with GAC Operating Principle 47 is understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Board._**_Any advice approved by the GAC, but falling short of consensus, may be rejected by a majority vote of the Board. In both instances, t_*he 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.”/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Schaefer, Brett *Sent:* Thursday, November 19, 2015 3:44 PM *To:* Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Cc:* s18@icann.org <mailto:s18@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [S18] Recap of inputs received
Jorge,
I’m asking it in the interest of illustrating the full range of options proposed. The current bylaws are present, the 1^st and 2^nd 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> [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>; s18@icann.org <mailto: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>>>:
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>> [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>> 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>> 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://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
_______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
As I mentioned in the chat on the last call it is my preference that we put a set of options to the CCWG, including the one suggested by Brett below. On 19/11/2015 20:15, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------ BrettSchaefer 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 *Mathieu Weill *Sent:* Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:09 AM *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> Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
participants (11)
-
Drazek, Keith -
Greg Shatan -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Mark Carvell -
Mathieu Weill -
Matthew Shears -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Perez Galindo, Rafael -
Phil Corwin -
Robin Gross -
Schaefer, Brett