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 www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Dear Colleagues, thanks to Julia and Finn for this porposal. As representative of the government of Argentina and member of the CCWG, I was not informed of this effort so I am not part of the group that prepared this proposal. It could have been useful and constructive that all the GAC members that were present in Joao Pessoa could have contributed to it. As I informed before I will be on a plane at the time of the call, and I will send comments and contribution after it takes place. Best regards Olga
El 16 nov 2015, a las 7:19 a.m., Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk> escribió:
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 www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email. <ST 18 Possible common ground proposal based on the Brazilian proposal and feedback from our discussions.docx> <ST 18 Possible common ground proposal based on the Brazilian proposal and feedback from our discussions.pdf> _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
Dear Julia, Thanks for that. I feel however, that there is a kind of inconsistency in the text now, caused by a passage that previous commenters (including GAC members) have indicated. The passage in part 1: Where the Board is required to seek a mutually acceptable solution to an advisory committee's advice if the Board does not follow that advice, the Board is not obliged to seek such a solution if that Advisory Committee's advice was not supported by consensus. I understand "required to seek a mutual acceptable solution" as, bottom line, an obligation for the board to reach such a solution. That might very well be impossible and is a change from the present situation and might result in a dead-lock or endless discussion, both without the possibility for the board (and the community) to move forward. The present situation is described in section 2: 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 The difference is between the obligation to reach a solution (part 1) and the obligation to try in good faith to reach a solution in a timely and efficient manner (part 2). My suggestion is that you use the "try in good faith..etc" of section 2 also in section 1 Cheers, Roelof Meijer SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl> | www.sidn.nl<http://www.sidn.nl/> From: <s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> Date: maandag 16 november 2015 11:19 To: "s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org>" <s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org>> Subject: [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 MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Hi Roelof As I understand it "to seek a mutually..." expresses the obligation to "try" and not to find through "to seek", but certainly we could probably even express it better... regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 16.11.2015 um 14:52 schrieb Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>>: Dear Julia, Thanks for that. I feel however, that there is a kind of inconsistency in the text now, caused by a passage that previous commenters (including GAC members) have indicated. The passage in part 1: Where the Board is required to seek a mutually acceptable solution to an advisory committee's advice if the Board does not follow that advice, the Board is not obliged to seek such a solution if that Advisory Committee's advice was not supported by consensus. I understand “required to seek a mutual acceptable solution” as, bottom line, an obligation for the board to reach such a solution. That might very well be impossible and is a change from the present situation and might result in a dead-lock or endless discussion, both without the possibility for the board (and the community) to move forward. The present situation is described in section 2: 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 The difference is between the obligation to reach a solution (part 1) and the obligation to try in good faith to reach a solution in a timely and efficient manner (part 2). My suggestion is that you use the “try in good faith..etc” of section 2 also in section 1 Cheers, Roelof Meijer SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl> | www.sidn.nl<http://www.sidn.nl/> From: <s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> Date: maandag 16 november 2015 11:19 To: "s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org>" <s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org>> Subject: [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. _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
Agree with Jorge on this, Roelof. “Seek” is just a short way of saying "Try to find”. From: <s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Date: Monday, November 16, 2015 at 8:56 AM To: "Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>" <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> Cc: "s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org>" <s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [S18] ST 18 - possible common ground proposal Hi Roelof As I understand it "to seek a mutually..." expresses the obligation to "try" and not to find through "to seek", but certainly we could probably even express it better... regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 16.11.2015 um 14:52 schrieb Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl><mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>>: Dear Julia, Thanks for that. I feel however, that there is a kind of inconsistency in the text now, caused by a passage that previous commenters (including GAC members) have indicated. The passage in part 1: Where the Board is required to seek a mutually acceptable solution to an advisory committee's advice if the Board does not follow that advice, the Board is not obliged to seek such a solution if that Advisory Committee's advice was not supported by consensus. I understand “required to seek a mutual acceptable solution” as, bottom line, an obligation for the board to reach such a solution. That might very well be impossible and is a change from the present situation and might result in a dead-lock or endless discussion, both without the possibility for the board (and the community) to move forward. The present situation is described in section 2: 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 The difference is between the obligation to reach a solution (part 1) and the obligation to try in good faith to reach a solution in a timely and efficient manner (part 2). My suggestion is that you use the “try in good faith..etc” of section 2 also in section 1 Cheers, Roelof Meijer SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl><mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl> | www.sidn.nl<http://www.sidn.nl/> From: <s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org><mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> Date: maandag 16 november 2015 11:19 To: "s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org><mailto:s18@icann.org>" <s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org><mailto:s18@icann.org>> Subject: [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><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. _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org><mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
Then why not stick with the existing language if there is no difference? ________________________________ 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/> __________ On Nov 16, 2015, at 9:15 AM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: Agree with Jorge on this, Roelof. “Seek” is just a short way of saying "Try to find”. From: <s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Date: Monday, November 16, 2015 at 8:56 AM To: "Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>" <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> Cc: "s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org>" <s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [S18] ST 18 - possible common ground proposal Hi Roelof As I understand it "to seek a mutually..." expresses the obligation to "try" and not to find through "to seek", but certainly we could probably even express it better... regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 16.11.2015 um 14:52 schrieb Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl><mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>>: Dear Julia, Thanks for that. I feel however, that there is a kind of inconsistency in the text now, caused by a passage that previous commenters (including GAC members) have indicated. The passage in part 1: Where the Board is required to seek a mutually acceptable solution to an advisory committee's advice if the Board does not follow that advice, the Board is not obliged to seek such a solution if that Advisory Committee's advice was not supported by consensus. I understand “required to seek a mutual acceptable solution” as, bottom line, an obligation for the board to reach such a solution. That might very well be impossible and is a change from the present situation and might result in a dead-lock or endless discussion, both without the possibility for the board (and the community) to move forward. The present situation is described in section 2: 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 The difference is between the obligation to reach a solution (part 1) and the obligation to try in good faith to reach a solution in a timely and efficient manner (part 2). My suggestion is that you use the “try in good faith..etc” of section 2 also in section 1 Cheers, Roelof Meijer SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl><mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl> | www.sidn.nl<http://www.sidn.nl><http://www.sidn.nl/> From: <s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org><mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> Date: maandag 16 november 2015 11:19 To: "s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org><mailto:s18@icann.org>" <s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org><mailto:s18@icann.org>> Subject: [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><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk><http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org><mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
While I tend to think that seek to find is not an obligation to reach a solution I would be interested Julia, in knowing why you changed the language from the current version? If, as I believe, they are equivalent, what justifies the change? If they are not equivalent in your mind, what do you see as the difference? Regarding the 2/3rd requirement to reject consensus advice, I have read your justification. I wonder if you could articulate why you think that the CCWG should adopt a proposal that was rejected by the community less than a year ago? Regards Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key From: Roelof Meijer [mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 8:52 AM To: Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk>; s18@icann.org Subject: Re: [S18] ST 18 - possible common ground proposal Dear Julia, Thanks for that. I feel however, that there is a kind of inconsistency in the text now, caused by a passage that previous commenters (including GAC members) have indicated. The passage in part 1: Where the Board is required to seek a mutually acceptable solution to an advisory committee's advice if the Board does not follow that advice, the Board is not obliged to seek such a solution if that Advisory Committee's advice was not supported by consensus. I understand required to seek a mutual acceptable solution as, bottom line, an obligation for the board to reach such a solution. That might very well be impossible and is a change from the present situation and might result in a dead-lock or endless discussion, both without the possibility for the board (and the community) to move forward. The present situation is described in section 2: 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 The difference is between the obligation to reach a solution (part 1) and the obligation to try in good faith to reach a solution in a timely and efficient manner (part 2). My suggestion is that you use the try in good faith..etc of section 2 also in section 1 Cheers, Roelof Meijer SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl> | <http://www.sidn.nl/> www.sidn.nl From: <s18-bounces@icann.org <mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> > Date: maandag 16 november 2015 11:19 To: "s18@icann.org <mailto:s18@icann.org> " <s18@icann.org <mailto:s18@icann.org> > Subject: [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.
I would delete the footnote – ACs should be able to arrive at consensus however they prefer -- and suggest a change to the later paragraph along these lines: “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 in the absence of any formal objection may only be rejected by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board. Any GAC advice approved by a GAC consensus with objection may only 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 Julia Katja Wolman Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 5:19 AM To: 's18@icann.org' Subject: [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, typo corrected: “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 in the absence of any formal objection may only be rejected by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board. Any GAC advice approved by a GAC consensus with objection 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: Monday, November 16, 2015 11:08 AM To: Julia Katja Wolman; 's18@icann.org' Subject: Re: [S18] ST 18 - possible common ground proposal I would delete the footnote – ACs should be able to arrive at consensus however they prefer -- and suggest a change to the later paragraph along these lines: “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 in the absence of any formal objection may only be rejected by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board. Any GAC advice approved by a GAC consensus with objection may only 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 Julia Katja Wolman Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 5:19 AM To: 's18@icann.org' Subject: [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.
participants (7)
-
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Julia Katja Wolman -
Olga Cavalli -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Roelof Meijer -
Schaefer, Brett -
Steve DelBianco