As I said yesterday during the call, entering into a discussion about percentages and numbers is a dead end. Upon whom exactly would the percentage be applied ? What wouldl be the criteria ? How do we define the membership of GAC ? Are international organisations, such as the African Union or the European Union, to be considered as full members ? Do we count the countries represented in the room only ? then what is the quorum ? how to count those who participate remotely ? How do we check that they do participate ? Why 97% ? Where does this number come from ? It is a very complicated process to set rules for voting. This is why we kept saying that the GAC shall be in control of them. Because they carry a lot of constraints, interests and collateral consequences. It will take the GAC a lot of time to decide on them. If the CCWG really wants to make a proposal on this, nobody knows when the Pandora box will be closed again. Regards, David Martinon Ambassadeur pour la cyberdiplomatie et l'économie numérique/Ambassador for Cyberdiplomacy and the Digital Economy +33 1 43 17 81 14
Hi all dear David, many thanks for you email. I fully agree with your comments. best regards Olga
El 19 nov 2015, a las 7:02 a.m., MARTINON David <david.martinon@diplomatie.gouv.fr> escribió:
As I said yesterday during the call, entering into a discussion about percentages and numbers is a dead end.
Upon whom exactly would the percentage be applied ? What wouldl be the criteria ? How do we define the membership of GAC ? Are international organisations, such as the African Union or the European Union, to be considered as full members ? Do we count the countries represented in the room only ? then what is the quorum ? how to count those who participate remotely ? How do we check that they do participate ?
Why 97% ? Where does this number come from ?
It is a very complicated process to set rules for voting. This is why we kept saying that the GAC shall be in control of them. Because they carry a lot of constraints, interests and collateral consequences. It will take the GAC a lot of time to decide on them.
If the CCWG really wants to make a proposal on this, nobody knows when the Pandora box will be closed again.
Regards,
David Martinon Ambassadeur pour la cyberdiplomatie et l’économie numérique/Ambassador for Cyberdiplomacy and the Digital Economy
+33 1 43 17 81 14
_______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
All, It’s my understanding that the GAC prefers to stay away from “voting” or anything that resembles it. I also understand that some governments want to amend the current definition to prevent any one government from blocking consensus. Today’s definition and practice for determining consensus is, “the absence of any formal objection.” Instead of using percentages and voting, perhaps the current definition could be amended to, “the absence of any formal objection from at least 2 governments.” This would avoid voting, avoid messy procedural questions (as raised below by David), and prevent any single government from breaking consensus. Please add this suggestion to the list of possible options considered by the ST18 sub-team. Happy to discuss further. Regards, Keith From: s18-bounces@icann.org [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 7:18 AM To: MARTINON David Cc: s18@icann.org Subject: Re: [S18] ST18 Hi all dear David, many thanks for you email. I fully agree with your comments. best regards Olga El 19 nov 2015, a las 7:02 a.m., MARTINON David <david.martinon@diplomatie.gouv.fr<mailto:david.martinon@diplomatie.gouv.fr>> escribió: As I said yesterday during the call, entering into a discussion about percentages and numbers is a dead end. Upon whom exactly would the percentage be applied ? What wouldl be the criteria ? How do we define the membership of GAC ? Are international organisations, such as the African Union or the European Union, to be considered as full members ? Do we count the countries represented in the room only ? then what is the quorum ? how to count those who participate remotely ? How do we check that they do participate ? Why 97% ? Where does this number come from ? It is a very complicated process to set rules for voting. This is why we kept saying that the GAC shall be in control of them. Because they carry a lot of constraints, interests and collateral consequences. It will take the GAC a lot of time to decide on them. If the CCWG really wants to make a proposal on this, nobody knows when the Pandora box will be closed again. Regards, David Martinon Ambassadeur pour la cyberdiplomatie et l’économie numérique/Ambassador for Cyberdiplomacy and the Digital Economy +33 1 43 17 81 14 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
This is a constructive suggestion and worthy of consideration. 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 Drazek, Keith [kdrazek@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 8:45 AM To: Olga Cavalli; MARTINON David Cc: s18@icann.org Subject: Re: [S18] ST18 All, It’s my understanding that the GAC prefers to stay away from “voting” or anything that resembles it. I also understand that some governments want to amend the current definition to prevent any one government from blocking consensus. Today’s definition and practice for determining consensus is, “the absence of any formal objection.” Instead of using percentages and voting, perhaps the current definition could be amended to, “the absence of any formal objection from at least 2 governments.” This would avoid voting, avoid messy procedural questions (as raised below by David), and prevent any single government from breaking consensus. Please add this suggestion to the list of possible options considered by the ST18 sub-team. Happy to discuss further. Regards, Keith From: s18-bounces@icann.org [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 7:18 AM To: MARTINON David Cc: s18@icann.org Subject: Re: [S18] ST18 Hi all dear David, many thanks for you email. I fully agree with your comments. best regards Olga El 19 nov 2015, a las 7:02 a.m., MARTINON David <david.martinon@diplomatie.gouv.fr<mailto:david.martinon@diplomatie.gouv.fr>> escribió: As I said yesterday during the call, entering into a discussion about percentages and numbers is a dead end. Upon whom exactly would the percentage be applied ? What wouldl be the criteria ? How do we define the membership of GAC ? Are international organisations, such as the African Union or the European Union, to be considered as full members ? Do we count the countries represented in the room only ? then what is the quorum ? how to count those who participate remotely ? How do we check that they do participate ? Why 97% ? Where does this number come from ? It is a very complicated process to set rules for voting. This is why we kept saying that the GAC shall be in control of them. Because they carry a lot of constraints, interests and collateral consequences. It will take the GAC a lot of time to decide on them. If the CCWG really wants to make a proposal on this, nobody knows when the Pandora box will be closed again. Regards, David Martinon Ambassadeur pour la cyberdiplomatie et l’économie numérique/Ambassador for Cyberdiplomacy and the Digital Economy +33 1 43 17 81 14 _______________________________________________ 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.
Phil and Keith, I strongly oppose this option. Why 2? Is capture somehow less of a concern if two governments work together? Why not 3 or 4 or 5 or 10? Under the status quo, the GAC can offer consensus advice (without formal objection) to the Board. It can also offer non-consensus advice to the Board, which under GAC OP 47, are presented as the full range of views expressed. In both cases, the Board can reject the advice by majority vote although it is obligated to “try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.” At the request of the GAC, we are considering raising the threshold for rejection of GAC advice from majority to two-thirds of the Board, which will make it much more difficult for the Board to reject GAC advice. As you noted in your earlier e-mail, this would “increase the influence of the GAC alone over the Board and other community groups.” If the community is to accept this, it must insist that this higher threshold apply only when GAC advice is supported by consensus without formal objection. This would ensure that the GAC advice has the support of all governments, which would hopefully ensure that the advice was fully vetted and examined for potential impact on ICANN, the community, and the stability, security, resilience and openness of the Internet. Bear in mind that in order to reverse GAC advice approved by the Board – or in other words supported by only 1/3 of the Board if this change its implemented – we would have to engage the community powers where the GAC could be a participant as well. Reaching the specific thresholds to exercise and enforce the community powers to reverse GAC advice would be very challenging. This insistence on consensus without formal objection would in no way prevent the GAC from sending forward non-consensus advice to the Board for consideration. But, as is fitting for advice with divided support, it would be subject to a lower rejection threshold of a majority of the Board. If the GAC advice adopted with objections has merit, I am sure the Board and the community would support it. 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: s18-bounces@icann.org [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 9:18 AM To: Drazek, Keith; Olga Cavalli; MARTINON David Cc: s18@icann.org Subject: Re: [S18] ST18 This is a constructive suggestion and worthy of consideration. 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] on behalf of Drazek, Keith [kdrazek@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 8:45 AM To: Olga Cavalli; MARTINON David Cc: s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Subject: Re: [S18] ST18 All, It’s my understanding that the GAC prefers to stay away from “voting” or anything that resembles it. I also understand that some governments want to amend the current definition to prevent any one government from blocking consensus. Today’s definition and practice for determining consensus is, “the absence of any formal objection.” Instead of using percentages and voting, perhaps the current definition could be amended to, “the absence of any formal objection from at least 2 governments.” This would avoid voting, avoid messy procedural questions (as raised below by David), and prevent any single government from breaking consensus. Please add this suggestion to the list of possible options considered by the ST18 sub-team. Happy to discuss further. Regards, Keith From: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 7:18 AM To: MARTINON David Cc: s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Subject: Re: [S18] ST18 Hi all dear David, many thanks for you email. I fully agree with your comments. best regards Olga El 19 nov 2015, a las 7:02 a.m., MARTINON David <david.martinon@diplomatie.gouv.fr<mailto:david.martinon@diplomatie.gouv.fr>> escribió: As I said yesterday during the call, entering into a discussion about percentages and numbers is a dead end. Upon whom exactly would the percentage be applied ? What wouldl be the criteria ? How do we define the membership of GAC ? Are international organisations, such as the African Union or the European Union, to be considered as full members ? Do we count the countries represented in the room only ? then what is the quorum ? how to count those who participate remotely ? How do we check that they do participate ? Why 97% ? Where does this number come from ? It is a very complicated process to set rules for voting. This is why we kept saying that the GAC shall be in control of them. Because they carry a lot of constraints, interests and collateral consequences. It will take the GAC a lot of time to decide on them. If the CCWG really wants to make a proposal on this, nobody knows when the Pandora box will be closed again. Regards, David Martinon Ambassadeur pour la cyberdiplomatie et l’économie numérique/Ambassador for Cyberdiplomacy and the Digital Economy +33 1 43 17 81 14 _______________________________________________ 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.
Dear Brett, Phil and David, and all, After yesterday's discussions and the last interventions, I see the point against percentages or specific numbers. The beauty in Julia's proposal is the combination between very tight language defining a minimum threshold for consensus, at the same time as providing for flexibility for ACs - flexibility which would be assessed by the Board in light of the Bylaws language and could be subject to action under the IRP... Therefore, I'd suggest to continue working on improving that language if needed. Regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 19.11.2015 um 15:58 schrieb Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>: Phil and Keith, I strongly oppose this option. Why 2? Is capture somehow less of a concern if two governments work together? Why not 3 or 4 or 5 or 10? Under the status quo, the GAC can offer consensus advice (without formal objection) to the Board. It can also offer non-consensus advice to the Board, which under GAC OP 47, are presented as the full range of views expressed. In both cases, the Board can reject the advice by majority vote although it is obligated to “try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.” At the request of the GAC, we are considering raising the threshold for rejection of GAC advice from majority to two-thirds of the Board, which will make it much more difficult for the Board to reject GAC advice. As you noted in your earlier e-mail, this would “increase the influence of the GAC alone over the Board and other community groups.” If the community is to accept this, it must insist that this higher threshold apply only when GAC advice is supported by consensus without formal objection. This would ensure that the GAC advice has the support of all governments, which would hopefully ensure that the advice was fully vetted and examined for potential impact on ICANN, the community, and the stability, security, resilience and openness of the Internet. Bear in mind that in order to reverse GAC advice approved by the Board – or in other words supported by only 1/3 of the Board if this change its implemented – we would have to engage the community powers where the GAC could be a participant as well. Reaching the specific thresholds to exercise and enforce the community powers to reverse GAC advice would be very challenging. This insistence on consensus without formal objection would in no way prevent the GAC from sending forward non-consensus advice to the Board for consideration. But, as is fitting for advice with divided support, it would be subject to a lower rejection threshold of a majority of the Board. If the GAC advice adopted with objections has merit, I am sure the Board and the community would support it. 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: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 9:18 AM To: Drazek, Keith; Olga Cavalli; MARTINON David Cc: s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Subject: Re: [S18] ST18 This is a constructive suggestion and worthy of consideration. 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 Drazek, Keith [kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>] Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 8:45 AM To: Olga Cavalli; MARTINON David Cc: s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Subject: Re: [S18] ST18 All, It’s my understanding that the GAC prefers to stay away from “voting” or anything that resembles it. I also understand that some governments want to amend the current definition to prevent any one government from blocking consensus. Today’s definition and practice for determining consensus is, “the absence of any formal objection.” Instead of using percentages and voting, perhaps the current definition could be amended to, “the absence of any formal objection from at least 2 governments.” This would avoid voting, avoid messy procedural questions (as raised below by David), and prevent any single government from breaking consensus. Please add this suggestion to the list of possible options considered by the ST18 sub-team. Happy to discuss further. Regards, Keith From: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 7:18 AM To: MARTINON David Cc: s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Subject: Re: [S18] ST18 Hi all dear David, many thanks for you email. I fully agree with your comments. best regards Olga El 19 nov 2015, a las 7:02 a.m., MARTINON David <david.martinon@diplomatie.gouv.fr<mailto:david.martinon@diplomatie.gouv.fr>> escribió: As I said yesterday during the call, entering into a discussion about percentages and numbers is a dead end. Upon whom exactly would the percentage be applied ? What wouldl be the criteria ? How do we define the membership of GAC ? Are international organisations, such as the African Union or the European Union, to be considered as full members ? Do we count the countries represented in the room only ? then what is the quorum ? how to count those who participate remotely ? How do we check that they do participate ? Why 97% ? Where does this number come from ? It is a very complicated process to set rules for voting. This is why we kept saying that the GAC shall be in control of them. Because they carry a lot of constraints, interests and collateral consequences. It will take the GAC a lot of time to decide on them. If the CCWG really wants to make a proposal on this, nobody knows when the Pandora box will be closed again. Regards, David Martinon Ambassadeur pour la cyberdiplomatie et l’économie numérique/Ambassador for Cyberdiplomacy and the Digital Economy +33 1 43 17 81 14 _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
participants (6)
-
Drazek, Keith -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
MARTINON David -
Olga Cavalli -
Phil Corwin -
Schaefer, Brett