Re: [S18] ST 18 - possible common ground proposal
Dear colleagues, I would like point out the implication of the footnote Denmark has proposed for consensus. 1. The footnote does not restrict the GAC's ability to change the GAC's current definition of consensus. 2. Should the GAC in the future change its definition of consensus in OP47 then the footnote defines the degree of consensus (within a very tight picket fence) to which the ICANN Board is obliged to seek a mutually acceptable solution with the GAC. 3. On the one hand, the footnote aims to ensure that the Board is not put in a position where it has to seek a mutually acceptable solution that goes against the views of a little more than "a very small Minority" in the GAC. In other words, the Board of Directors is only required to find a mutually acceptable solution when a "SuperSuperSuper Majority" (or almost all) of GAC members are behind. 4. On the other hand, the footnote ensures that the GAC's decision making is not captured by "a very small Minority" in the GAC. N.B A 2/3 majority could not be defined as consensus - far from it. I hope this is helpful. Best, Julia and Finn GAC - DK Kind regards Finn Petersen Director of International ICT Relations DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 3529 1013 Mobile: +45 2072 7 E-mail: FinPet@erst.dk<mailto:FinPet@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Julia Katja Wolman Sendt: 16. november 2015 11:19 Til: 's18@icann.org' Emne: [S18] ST 18 - possible common ground proposal Dear Colleagues, At the IGF in Joao Pessoa several GAC members discussed a way forward with regard to Stress test 18 with the belief that finding common ground is of crucial importance and achievable. As a result, please find attached a friendly "common ground" proposal for Bylaw amendment for your kind consideration. This common ground proposal builds on the Brazilian proposal and aims at integrating the feedback and alternatives from the CCWG list discussions, including an attempt to address the concerns with regard to "consensus". We kindly suggest that this common ground proposal be presented and discussed at the ST 18 call later today. Best regards, Finn and Julia GAC DK Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Sorry - a small but important correction -:) I have inserted the words " TRY TO" in point 3. Best, Finn Fra: Finn Petersen Sendt: 18. november 2015 10:57 Til: 's18@icann.org' Emne: VS: [S18] ST 18 - possible common ground proposal Dear colleagues, I would like point out the implication of the footnote Denmark has proposed for consensus. 1. The footnote does not restrict the GAC's ability to change the GAC's current definition of consensus. 2. Should the GAC in the future change its definition of consensus in OP47 then the footnote defines the degree of consensus (within a very tight picket fence) to which the ICANN Board is obliged to seek a mutually acceptable solution with the GAC. 3. On the one hand, the footnote aims to ensure that the Board is not put in a position where it has to seek a mutually acceptable solution that goes against the views of a little more than "a very small Minority" in the GAC. In other words, the Board of Directors is only required to TRY TO find a mutually acceptable solution when a "SuperSuperSuper Majority" (or almost all) of GAC members are behind. 4. On the other hand, the footnote ensures that the GAC's decision making is not captured by "a very small Minority" in the GAC. N.B A 2/3 majority could not be defined as consensus - far from it. I hope this is helpful. Best, Julia and Finn GAC - DK Kind regards Finn Petersen Director of International ICT Relations DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 3529 1013 Mobile: +45 2072 7 E-mail: FinPet@erst.dk<mailto:FinPet@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Julia Katja Wolman Sendt: 16. november 2015 11:19 Til: 's18@icann.org' Emne: [S18] ST 18 - possible common ground proposal Dear Colleagues, At the IGF in Joao Pessoa several GAC members discussed a way forward with regard to Stress test 18 with the belief that finding common ground is of crucial importance and achievable. As a result, please find attached a friendly "common ground" proposal for Bylaw amendment for your kind consideration. This common ground proposal builds on the Brazilian proposal and aims at integrating the feedback and alternatives from the CCWG list discussions, including an attempt to address the concerns with regard to "consensus". We kindly suggest that this common ground proposal be presented and discussed at the ST 18 call later today. Best regards, Finn and Julia GAC DK Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Finn, I’m still confused. What is the difference between a SuperSuperSuper Majority being consensus and objection by a very small minority in not being consensus? In my opinion, this FN, if it goes in at all, should go into the Advisory Committee section of the bylaws dealing with the GAC. 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 Finn Petersen Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 4:57 AM To: 's18@icann.org' Subject: Re: [S18] ST 18 - possible common ground proposal Dear colleagues, I would like point out the implication of the footnote Denmark has proposed for consensus. 1. The footnote does not restrict the GAC's ability to change the GAC's current definition of consensus. 2. Should the GAC in the future change its definition of consensus in OP47 then the footnote defines the degree of consensus (within a very tight picket fence) to which the ICANN Board is obliged to seek a mutually acceptable solution with the GAC. 3. On the one hand, the footnote aims to ensure that the Board is not put in a position where it has to seek a mutually acceptable solution that goes against the views of a little more than "a very small Minority" in the GAC. In other words, the Board of Directors is only required to find a mutually acceptable solution when a "SuperSuperSuper Majority" (or almost all) of GAC members are behind. 4. On the other hand, the footnote ensures that the GAC's decision making is not captured by "a very small Minority" in the GAC. N.B A 2/3 majority could not be defined as consensus - far from it. I hope this is helpful. Best, Julia and Finn GAC - DK Kind regards Finn Petersen Director of International ICT Relations DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 3529 1013 Mobile: +45 2072 7 E-mail: FinPet@erst.dk<mailto:FinPet@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Julia Katja Wolman Sendt: 16. november 2015 11:19 Til: 's18@icann.org' Emne: [S18] ST 18 - possible common ground proposal Dear Colleagues, At the IGF in Joao Pessoa several GAC members discussed a way forward with regard to Stress test 18 with the belief that finding common ground is of crucial importance and achievable. As a result, please find attached a friendly “common ground” proposal for Bylaw amendment for your kind consideration. This common ground proposal builds on the Brazilian proposal and aims at integrating the feedback and alternatives from the CCWG list discussions, including an attempt to address the concerns with regard to "consensus". We kindly suggest that this common ground proposal be presented and discussed at the ST 18 call later today. Best regards, Finn and Julia GAC DK Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Switching subjects, and following up on my comments on the call that just ended, I asked if the GAC advice on public policy matters that requires a 2/3 Board vote to reject could include any subject that should properly be the subject of a PDP, and the reply I received was that it did not. If that is indeed the case then any Bylaws amendment on this subject should include such a limitation. Absent such a limitation, the effect of what is being proposed is to provide an alternate route to the creation of DNS policy that flows only through the GAC to the exclusion of all other ICANN constituencies. 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 Schaefer, Brett [Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 8:10 AM To: Finn Petersen; 's18@icann.org' Subject: Re: [S18] ST 18 - possible common ground proposal Finn, I’m still confused. What is the difference between a SuperSuperSuper Majority being consensus and objection by a very small minority in not being consensus? In my opinion, this FN, if it goes in at all, should go into the Advisory Committee section of the bylaws dealing with the GAC. 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 Finn Petersen Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 4:57 AM To: 's18@icann.org' Subject: Re: [S18] ST 18 - possible common ground proposal Dear colleagues, I would like point out the implication of the footnote Denmark has proposed for consensus. 1. The footnote does not restrict the GAC's ability to change the GAC's current definition of consensus. 2. Should the GAC in the future change its definition of consensus in OP47 then the footnote defines the degree of consensus (within a very tight picket fence) to which the ICANN Board is obliged to seek a mutually acceptable solution with the GAC. 3. On the one hand, the footnote aims to ensure that the Board is not put in a position where it has to seek a mutually acceptable solution that goes against the views of a little more than "a very small Minority" in the GAC. In other words, the Board of Directors is only required to find a mutually acceptable solution when a "SuperSuperSuper Majority" (or almost all) of GAC members are behind. 4. On the other hand, the footnote ensures that the GAC's decision making is not captured by "a very small Minority" in the GAC. N.B A 2/3 majority could not be defined as consensus - far from it. I hope this is helpful. Best, Julia and Finn GAC - DK Kind regards Finn Petersen Director of International ICT Relations DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 3529 1013 Mobile: +45 2072 7 E-mail: FinPet@erst.dk<mailto:FinPet@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Julia Katja Wolman Sendt: 16. november 2015 11:19 Til: 's18@icann.org' Emne: [S18] ST 18 - possible common ground proposal Dear Colleagues, At the IGF in Joao Pessoa several GAC members discussed a way forward with regard to Stress test 18 with the belief that finding common ground is of crucial importance and achievable. As a result, please find attached a friendly “common ground” proposal for Bylaw amendment for your kind consideration. This common ground proposal builds on the Brazilian proposal and aims at integrating the feedback and alternatives from the CCWG list discussions, including an attempt to address the concerns with regard to "consensus". We kindly suggest that this common ground proposal be presented and discussed at the ST 18 call later today. Best regards, Finn and Julia GAC DK Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. ________________________________ 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.
Thanks for raising this issue. ________________________________ 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: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 9:12 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; Finn Petersen; 's18@icann.org' Subject: RE: [S18] ST 18 - possible common ground proposal Switching subjects, and following up on my comments on the call that just ended, I asked if the GAC advice on public policy matters that requires a 2/3 Board vote to reject could include any subject that should properly be the subject of a PDP, and the reply I received was that it did not. If that is indeed the case then any Bylaws amendment on this subject should include such a limitation. Absent such a limitation, the effect of what is being proposed is to provide an alternate route to the creation of DNS policy that flows only through the GAC to the exclusion of all other ICANN constituencies. 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 Schaefer, Brett [Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 8:10 AM To: Finn Petersen; 's18@icann.org' Subject: Re: [S18] ST 18 - possible common ground proposal Finn, I’m still confused. What is the difference between a SuperSuperSuper Majority being consensus and objection by a very small minority in not being consensus? In my opinion, this FN, if it goes in at all, should go into the Advisory Committee section of the bylaws dealing with the GAC. 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 Finn Petersen Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 4:57 AM To: 's18@icann.org' Subject: Re: [S18] ST 18 - possible common ground proposal Dear colleagues, I would like point out the implication of the footnote Denmark has proposed for consensus. 1. The footnote does not restrict the GAC's ability to change the GAC's current definition of consensus. 2. Should the GAC in the future change its definition of consensus in OP47 then the footnote defines the degree of consensus (within a very tight picket fence) to which the ICANN Board is obliged to seek a mutually acceptable solution with the GAC. 3. On the one hand, the footnote aims to ensure that the Board is not put in a position where it has to seek a mutually acceptable solution that goes against the views of a little more than "a very small Minority" in the GAC. In other words, the Board of Directors is only required to find a mutually acceptable solution when a "SuperSuperSuper Majority" (or almost all) of GAC members are behind. 4. On the other hand, the footnote ensures that the GAC's decision making is not captured by "a very small Minority" in the GAC. N.B A 2/3 majority could not be defined as consensus - far from it. I hope this is helpful. Best, Julia and Finn GAC - DK Kind regards Finn Petersen Director of International ICT Relations DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 3529 1013 Mobile: +45 2072 7 E-mail: FinPet@erst.dk<mailto:FinPet@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Julia Katja Wolman Sendt: 16. november 2015 11:19 Til: 's18@icann.org' Emne: [S18] ST 18 - possible common ground proposal Dear Colleagues, At the IGF in Joao Pessoa several GAC members discussed a way forward with regard to Stress test 18 with the belief that finding common ground is of crucial importance and achievable. As a result, please find attached a friendly “common ground” proposal for Bylaw amendment for your kind consideration. This common ground proposal builds on the Brazilian proposal and aims at integrating the feedback and alternatives from the CCWG list discussions, including an attempt to address the concerns with regard to "consensus". We kindly suggest that this common ground proposal be presented and discussed at the ST 18 call later today. Best regards, Finn and Julia GAC DK Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. ________________________________ 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.
participants (3)
-
Finn Petersen -
Phil Corwin -
Schaefer, Brett