ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal
Mathieu asked me to document some variations on the Common Ground proposal that circulated before today’s ST18 call. I showed the original text in column 1 of the attached 1-page document. I added three “bracketed” variations on using a footnote, per discussion on today’s call: The 1st bracketed text is a close copy of Denmark’s original. The 2nd bracketed text documents the GAC’s present practice for consensus. The 3rd bracketed text indicates GAC consensus matches whatever the UN is practicing as “consensus” at that time. — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206
Dear Steve thanks for the document. It is not clear to me why the text sent before the call is considered common ground proposal. The document should also include Pedro's proposal. Regards Olga
El 16 nov 2015, a las 8:21 p.m., Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> escribió:
Mathieu asked me to document some variations on the Common Ground proposal that circulated before today’s ST18 call.
I showed the original text in column 1 of the attached 1-page document.
I added three “bracketed” variations on using a footnote, per discussion on today’s call:
The 1st bracketed text is a close copy of Denmark’s original.
The 2nd bracketed text documents the GAC’s present practice for consensus.
The 3rd bracketed text indicates GAC consensus matches whatever the UN is practicing as “consensus” at that time.
— Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.703.615.6206
<Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.pdf> <Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.docx> _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
Olga, I used the term ‘Common Ground” only because that’s what Julia and Finn called it in their email today, “common ground proposal”. Their note says, "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". From: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, November 16, 2015 at 10:16 PM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Cc: "s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org>" <s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal Dear Steve thanks for the document. It is not clear to me why the text sent before the call is considered common ground proposal. The document should also include Pedro's proposal. Regards Olga El 16 nov 2015, a las 8:21 p.m., Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> escribió: Mathieu asked me to document some variations on the Common Ground proposal that circulated before today’s ST18 call. I showed the original text in column 1 of the attached 1-page document. I added three “bracketed” variations on using a footnote, per discussion on today’s call: The 1st bracketed text is a close copy of Denmark’s original. The 2nd bracketed text documents the GAC’s present practice for consensus. The 3rd bracketed text indicates GAC consensus matches whatever the UN is practicing as “consensus” at that time. — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206 <Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.pdf> <Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.docx> _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
Steve, thanks. As far as I got from the transcript this proposal is a new one but not common ground. Best Olga
El 17 nov 2015, a las 1:04 a.m., Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> escribió:
Olga,
I used the term ‘Common Ground” only because that’s what Julia and Finn called it in their email today, “common ground proposal”.
Their note says, "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".
From: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com> Date: Monday, November 16, 2015 at 10:16 PM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Cc: "s18@icann.org" <s18@icann.org> Subject: Re: [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal
Dear Steve thanks for the document. It is not clear to me why the text sent before the call is considered common ground proposal. The document should also include Pedro's proposal. Regards Olga
El 16 nov 2015, a las 8:21 p.m., Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> escribió:
Mathieu asked me to document some variations on the Common Ground proposal that circulated before today’s ST18 call.
I showed the original text in column 1 of the attached 1-page document.
I added three “bracketed” variations on using a footnote, per discussion on today’s call:
The 1st bracketed text is a close copy of Denmark’s original.
The 2nd bracketed text documents the GAC’s present practice for consensus.
The 3rd bracketed text indicates GAC consensus matches whatever the UN is practicing as “consensus” at that time.
— Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.703.615.6206 <Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.pdf> <Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.docx> _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
Dear Steve In what is the third variation different from the second? How would the two variations answer and adress the call for flexibility for ACs in defining consensus contained in the GAC Dublin consensus? I feel they do not and that the solution is not to impose one definition, but to find a narrow path between unanimity (which should not be imposed) and majority rule (which should not be allowed). Without that narrow line, any AC to which such a definition would apply would easily be captured by one single delegate/member or a very tiny minority, without any possibility to react to such a situation. This narrow line is in my view achieved in Julia's proposal. Hence I urge colleagues to work on that proposal, which already channels significantly the principle of flexibility on defining consensus called by the GAC in Dublin. regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 17.11.2015 um 00:37 schrieb Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>: Mathieu asked me to document some variations on the Common Ground proposal that circulated before today’s ST18 call. I showed the original text in column 1 of the attached 1-page document. I added three “bracketed” variations on using a footnote, per discussion on today’s call: The 1st bracketed text is a close copy of Denmark’s original. The 2nd bracketed text documents the GAC’s present practice for consensus. The 3rd bracketed text indicates GAC consensus matches whatever the UN is practicing as “consensus” at that time. — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206 <Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.pdf> <Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.docx> _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
Let me chime in to support Jorge's remarks. In order to achieve a language that satisfies us all and complies with the GAC Dublin consensus communiqué, we have to walk a thin line between two points that should be avoided: imposition of unanimity (that could yield to capture) and possibility of majority rule (that should not be permitted). Julia's proposal has been carefully crafted to walk that line. And let me add that it is a good faith proposal, which tries to address everyone's concerns, including the ones that originated the inclusion of this Stress Test in the first place, and which constitutes already a major concession for many governments. Apart from needed language tweaking (such as replacing "seek" for "try to find" as Paul R. suggested), I kindly call and invite you to read Julia's proposal spirit, and reflect on whether you could live with such a common ground language, in order to put this to bed and move forward with the overall CCWG proposal. Warm regards, Rafael GAC_SPAIN -----Mensaje original----- De: s18-bounces@icann.org [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Enviado el: martes, 17 de noviembre de 2015 7:00 Para: sdelbianco@netchoice.org CC: s18@icann.org Asunto: Re: [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal Dear Steve In what is the third variation different from the second? How would the two variations answer and adress the call for flexibility for ACs in defining consensus contained in the GAC Dublin consensus? I feel they do not and that the solution is not to impose one definition, but to find a narrow path between unanimity (which should not be imposed) and majority rule (which should not be allowed). Without that narrow line, any AC to which such a definition would apply would easily be captured by one single delegate/member or a very tiny minority, without any possibility to react to such a situation. This narrow line is in my view achieved in Julia's proposal. Hence I urge colleagues to work on that proposal, which already channels significantly the principle of flexibility on defining consensus called by the GAC in Dublin. regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 17.11.2015 um 00:37 schrieb Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>: Mathieu asked me to document some variations on the Common Ground proposal that circulated before today's ST18 call. I showed the original text in column 1 of the attached 1-page document. I added three "bracketed" variations on using a footnote, per discussion on today's call: The 1st bracketed text is a close copy of Denmark's original. The 2nd bracketed text documents the GAC's present practice for consensus. The 3rd bracketed text indicates GAC consensus matches whatever the UN is practicing as "consensus" at that time. - Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206 <Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.pdf> <Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.docx> _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
Hello all, I just wanted to reinforce the importance of the statement put forth in the GAC Dublin Communiqué (resulting from consensus among all GAC members) that: "The need that each and every Advisory Committee should preserve its own autonomy in its definition of consensus;" This should be understood as part of an overall compromise in order to allow for the requirement of consensus be applied to GAC advice. It would therefore not be appropriate to have a solution that would preclude the ACs from defining its own understanding of consensus with regards to advice to be submitted to the ICANN Board. Regards, Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI) Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Division of Information Society (DI) Ministry of External Relations - Brazil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 -----Mensagem original----- De: s18-bounces@icann.org [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Perez Galindo, Rafael Enviada em: terça-feira, 17 de novembro de 2015 07:28 Para: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; sdelbianco@netchoice.org Cc: s18@icann.org Assunto: Re: [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal Let me chime in to support Jorge's remarks. In order to achieve a language that satisfies us all and complies with the GAC Dublin consensus communiqué, we have to walk a thin line between two points that should be avoided: imposition of unanimity (that could yield to capture) and possibility of majority rule (that should not be permitted). Julia's proposal has been carefully crafted to walk that line. And let me add that it is a good faith proposal, which tries to address everyone's concerns, including the ones that originated the inclusion of this Stress Test in the first place, and which constitutes already a major concession for many governments. Apart from needed language tweaking (such as replacing "seek" for "try to find" as Paul R. suggested), I kindly call and invite you to read Julia's proposal spirit, and reflect on whether you could live with such a common ground language, in order to put this to bed and move forward with the overall CCWG proposal. Warm regards, Rafael GAC_SPAIN -----Mensaje original----- De: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Enviado el: martes, 17 de noviembre de 2015 7:00 Para: sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> CC: s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal Dear Steve In what is the third variation different from the second? How would the two variations answer and adress the call for flexibility for ACs in defining consensus contained in the GAC Dublin consensus? I feel they do not and that the solution is not to impose one definition, but to find a narrow path between unanimity (which should not be imposed) and majority rule (which should not be allowed). Without that narrow line, any AC to which such a definition would apply would easily be captured by one single delegate/member or a very tiny minority, without any possibility to react to such a situation. This narrow line is in my view achieved in Julia's proposal. Hence I urge colleagues to work on that proposal, which already channels significantly the principle of flexibility on defining consensus called by the GAC in Dublin. regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 17.11.2015 um 00:37 schrieb Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org%3cmailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>>: Mathieu asked me to document some variations on the Common Ground proposal that circulated before today's ST18 call. I showed the original text in column 1 of the attached 1-page document. I added three "bracketed" variations on using a footnote, per discussion on today's call: The 1st bracketed text is a close copy of Denmark's original. The 2nd bracketed text documents the GAC's present practice for consensus. The 3rd bracketed text indicates GAC consensus matches whatever the UN is practicing as "consensus" at that time. - Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/<http://www.NetChoice.org%3chttp:/www.netchoice.org/>> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/<http://blog.netchoice.org%3chttp:/blog.netchoice.org/>> +1.703.615.6206 <Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.pdf> <Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.docx> _______________________________________________ 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<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
Just a quick point of reference I am indeed impressed that the GAC reached consensus that it should control its own destiny. But you keep referring to that consensus as a baseline for what you think the rest of the community should accept. It isnt the reference point for that are the conditions set forth by the NTIA and the interrelatedness of the accountability to the IANA transition identified by the CWG. I now do appreciate the position that the GAC should not be held hostage to a single hold out country. But if the GAC insists that no solution is permissible that places bounds on the GACs definition of consensus then the GACs view is not, in my view, acceptable. I could, therefore live with Julia and Finns footnote, but only if it were clearly understood that the footnote defines the outer bounds of the limitation on the GACs ability to force the Board to consider its advice. If it were not seen as defining an outer limit then it isnt really an improvement at all it is just an expression of false hope. Cheers 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: Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva [mailto:pedro.ivo@itamaraty.gov.br] Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 8:13 AM To: 'Perez Galindo, Rafael' <RPEREZGA@minetur.es>; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; sdelbianco@netchoice.org Cc: s18@icann.org Subject: [S18] RES: ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal Hello all, I just wanted to reinforce the importance of the statement put forth in the GAC Dublin Communiqué (resulting from consensus among all GAC members) that: "The need that each and every Advisory Committee should preserve its own autonomy in its definition of consensus;" This should be understood as part of an overall compromise in order to allow for the requirement of consensus be applied to GAC advice. It would therefore not be appropriate to have a solution that would preclude the ACs from defining its own understanding of consensus with regards to advice to be submitted to the ICANN Board. Regards, Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI) Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Division of Information Society (DI) Ministry of External Relations - Brazil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 -----Mensagem original----- De: s18-bounces@icann.org <mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Perez Galindo, Rafael Enviada em: terça-feira, 17 de novembro de 2015 07:28 Para: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> ; sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Cc: s18@icann.org <mailto:s18@icann.org> Assunto: Re: [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal Let me chime in to support Jorge's remarks. In order to achieve a language that satisfies us all and complies with the GAC Dublin consensus communiqué, we have to walk a thin line between two points that should be avoided: imposition of unanimity (that could yield to capture) and possibility of majority rule (that should not be permitted). Julia's proposal has been carefully crafted to walk that line. And let me add that it is a good faith proposal, which tries to address everyone's concerns, including the ones that originated the inclusion of this Stress Test in the first place, and which constitutes already a major concession for many governments. Apart from needed language tweaking (such as replacing "seek" for "try to find" as Paul R. suggested), I kindly call and invite you to read Julia's proposal spirit, and reflect on whether you could live with such a common ground language, in order to put this to bed and move forward with the overall CCWG proposal. Warm regards, Rafael GAC_SPAIN -----Mensaje original----- De: <mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> s18-bounces@icann.org [ <mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Enviado el: martes, 17 de noviembre de 2015 7:00 Para: <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> sdelbianco@netchoice.org CC: <mailto:s18@icann.org> s18@icann.org Asunto: Re: [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal Dear Steve In what is the third variation different from the second? How would the two variations answer and adress the call for flexibility for ACs in defining consensus contained in the GAC Dublin consensus? I feel they do not and that the solution is not to impose one definition, but to find a narrow path between unanimity (which should not be imposed) and majority rule (which should not be allowed). Without that narrow line, any AC to which such a definition would apply would easily be captured by one single delegate/member or a very tiny minority, without any possibility to react to such a situation. This narrow line is in my view achieved in Julia's proposal. Hence I urge colleagues to work on that proposal, which already channels significantly the principle of flexibility on defining consensus called by the GAC in Dublin. regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 17.11.2015 um 00:37 schrieb Steve DelBianco < <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org%3cmailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>: Mathieu asked me to document some variations on the Common Ground proposal that circulated before today's ST18 call. I showed the original text in column 1 of the attached 1-page document. I added three "bracketed" variations on using a footnote, per discussion on today's call: The 1st bracketed text is a close copy of Denmark's original. The 2nd bracketed text documents the GAC's present practice for consensus. The 3rd bracketed text indicates GAC consensus matches whatever the UN is practicing as "consensus" at that time. - Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice <http://www.NetChoice.org%3chttp:/www.netchoice.org/> http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and <http://blog.netchoice.org%3chttp:/blog.netchoice.org/> http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206 <Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.pdf> <Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.docx> _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list <mailto:S18@icann.org%3cmailto:S18@icann.org> S18@icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list <mailto:S18@icann.org> S18@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list <mailto:S18@icann.org> S18@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
I feel we agree on that "outer limit" idea - speaking only for myself obviously... Best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 17.11.2015 um 15:28 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>: Just a quick point of reference – I am indeed impressed that the GAC reached consensus that it should control its own destiny. But you keep referring to that consensus as a baseline for what you think the rest of the community should accept. It isn’t … the reference point for that are the conditions set forth by the NTIA and the interrelatedness of the accountability to the IANA transition identified by the CWG. I now do appreciate the position that the GAC should not be held hostage to a single hold out country. But if the GAC insists that no solution is permissible that places bounds on the GAC’s definition of consensus then the GAC’s view is not, in my view, acceptable. I could, therefore live with Julia and Finn’s footnote, but only if it were clearly understood that the footnote defines the outer bounds of the limitation on the GAC’s ability to force the Board to consider its advice. If it were not seen as defining an outer limit then it isn’t really an improvement at all – it is just an expression of false hope. Cheers Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> From: Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva [mailto:pedro.ivo@itamaraty.gov.br] Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 8:13 AM To: 'Perez Galindo, Rafael' <RPEREZGA@minetur.es<mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es>>; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Cc: s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Subject: [S18] RES: ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal Hello all, I just wanted to reinforce the importance of the statement put forth in the GAC Dublin Communiqué (resulting from consensus among all GAC members) that: "The need that each and every Advisory Committee should preserve its own autonomy in its definition of consensus;" This should be understood as part of an overall compromise in order to allow for the requirement of consensus be applied to GAC advice. It would therefore not be appropriate to have a solution that would preclude the ACs from defining its own understanding of consensus with regards to advice to be submitted to the ICANN Board. Regards, Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI) Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Division of Information Society (DI) Ministry of External Relations - Brazil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 -----Mensagem original----- De: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Perez Galindo, Rafael Enviada em: terça-feira, 17 de novembro de 2015 07:28 Para: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Cc: s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Assunto: Re: [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal Let me chime in to support Jorge's remarks. In order to achieve a language that satisfies us all and complies with the GAC Dublin consensus communiqué, we have to walk a thin line between two points that should be avoided: imposition of unanimity (that could yield to capture) and possibility of majority rule (that should not be permitted). Julia's proposal has been carefully crafted to walk that line. And let me add that it is a good faith proposal, which tries to address everyone's concerns, including the ones that originated the inclusion of this Stress Test in the first place, and which constitutes already a major concession for many governments. Apart from needed language tweaking (such as replacing "seek" for "try to find" as Paul R. suggested), I kindly call and invite you to read Julia's proposal spirit, and reflect on whether you could live with such a common ground language, in order to put this to bed and move forward with the overall CCWG proposal. Warm regards, Rafael GAC_SPAIN -----Mensaje original----- De: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Enviado el: martes, 17 de noviembre de 2015 7:00 Para: sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> CC: s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal Dear Steve In what is the third variation different from the second? How would the two variations answer and adress the call for flexibility for ACs in defining consensus contained in the GAC Dublin consensus? I feel they do not and that the solution is not to impose one definition, but to find a narrow path between unanimity (which should not be imposed) and majority rule (which should not be allowed). Without that narrow line, any AC to which such a definition would apply would easily be captured by one single delegate/member or a very tiny minority, without any possibility to react to such a situation. This narrow line is in my view achieved in Julia's proposal. Hence I urge colleagues to work on that proposal, which already channels significantly the principle of flexibility on defining consensus called by the GAC in Dublin. regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 17.11.2015 um 00:37 schrieb Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org%3cmailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>>: Mathieu asked me to document some variations on the Common Ground proposal that circulated before today's ST18 call. I showed the original text in column 1 of the attached 1-page document. I added three "bracketed" variations on using a footnote, per discussion on today's call: The 1st bracketed text is a close copy of Denmark's original. The 2nd bracketed text documents the GAC's present practice for consensus. The 3rd bracketed text indicates GAC consensus matches whatever the UN is practicing as "consensus" at that time. - Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/<http://www.NetChoice.org%3chttp:/www.netchoice.org/>> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/<http://blog.netchoice.org%3chttp:/blog.netchoice.org/>> +1.703.615.6206 <Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.pdf> <Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.docx> _______________________________________________ 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<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
Pedro, Who is arguing against this? Our entire discussion is about how the Board should treat the advice it receives, not about how the ACs should define or arrive at their decisions. The GAC can define consensus however it wants, but the Board should only have to try in good faith to reach a compromise if that advice is supported by a full consensus. 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 Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 8:13 AM To: 'Perez Galindo, Rafael'; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; sdelbianco@netchoice.org Cc: s18@icann.org Subject: [S18] RES: ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal Hello all, I just wanted to reinforce the importance of the statement put forth in the GAC Dublin Communiqué (resulting from consensus among all GAC members) that: "The need that each and every Advisory Committee should preserve its own autonomy in its definition of consensus;" This should be understood as part of an overall compromise in order to allow for the requirement of consensus be applied to GAC advice. It would therefore not be appropriate to have a solution that would preclude the ACs from defining its own understanding of consensus with regards to advice to be submitted to the ICANN Board. Regards, Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI) Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Division of Information Society (DI) Ministry of External Relations - Brazil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 -----Mensagem original----- De: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Perez Galindo, Rafael Enviada em: terça-feira, 17 de novembro de 2015 07:28 Para: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Cc: s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Assunto: Re: [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal Let me chime in to support Jorge's remarks. In order to achieve a language that satisfies us all and complies with the GAC Dublin consensus communiqué, we have to walk a thin line between two points that should be avoided: imposition of unanimity (that could yield to capture) and possibility of majority rule (that should not be permitted). Julia's proposal has been carefully crafted to walk that line. And let me add that it is a good faith proposal, which tries to address everyone's concerns, including the ones that originated the inclusion of this Stress Test in the first place, and which constitutes already a major concession for many governments. Apart from needed language tweaking (such as replacing "seek" for "try to find" as Paul R. suggested), I kindly call and invite you to read Julia's proposal spirit, and reflect on whether you could live with such a common ground language, in order to put this to bed and move forward with the overall CCWG proposal. Warm regards, Rafael GAC_SPAIN -----Mensaje original----- De: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Enviado el: martes, 17 de noviembre de 2015 7:00 Para: sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> CC: s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal Dear Steve In what is the third variation different from the second? How would the two variations answer and adress the call for flexibility for ACs in defining consensus contained in the GAC Dublin consensus? I feel they do not and that the solution is not to impose one definition, but to find a narrow path between unanimity (which should not be imposed) and majority rule (which should not be allowed). Without that narrow line, any AC to which such a definition would apply would easily be captured by one single delegate/member or a very tiny minority, without any possibility to react to such a situation. This narrow line is in my view achieved in Julia's proposal. Hence I urge colleagues to work on that proposal, which already channels significantly the principle of flexibility on defining consensus called by the GAC in Dublin. regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 17.11.2015 um 00:37 schrieb Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org%3cmailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>>: Mathieu asked me to document some variations on the Common Ground proposal that circulated before today's ST18 call. I showed the original text in column 1 of the attached 1-page document. I added three "bracketed" variations on using a footnote, per discussion on today's call: The 1st bracketed text is a close copy of Denmark's original. The 2nd bracketed text documents the GAC's present practice for consensus. The 3rd bracketed text indicates GAC consensus matches whatever the UN is practicing as "consensus" at that time. - Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/<http://www.NetChoice.org%3chttp:/www.netchoice.org/>> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/<http://blog.netchoice.org%3chttp:/blog.netchoice.org/>> +1.703.615.6206 <Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.pdf> <Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.docx> _______________________________________________ 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<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
Dear All I agree with Pedro that it is fundamentally important to adhere to this conditionality - and indeed I recall this was understood by all CCWG members and participants in respect of the GAC at the Frankfurt meeting and subsequently. Kind regards Mark Mark Carvell United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062 On 17 November 2015 at 13:12, Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva < pedro.ivo@itamaraty.gov.br> wrote:
Hello all,
I just wanted to reinforce the importance of the statement put forth in the GAC Dublin Communiqué (resulting from consensus among all GAC members) that:
"The need that each and every Advisory Committee *should preserve its own autonomy in its definition of consensus*;"
This should be understood as part of an overall compromise in order to allow for the requirement of consensus be applied to GAC advice. It would therefore not be appropriate to have a solution that would preclude the ACs from defining its own understanding of consensus with regards to advice to be submitted to the ICANN Board.
Regards,
Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI)
Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil
T: + 55 61 2030-6609
Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
Division of Information Society (DI)
Ministry of External Relations - Brazil
T: + 55 61 2030-6609
-----Mensagem original----- De: s18-bounces@icann.org [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Perez Galindo, Rafael Enviada em: terça-feira, 17 de novembro de 2015 07:28 Para: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; sdelbianco@netchoice.org Cc: s18@icann.org Assunto: Re: [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal
Let me chime in to support Jorge's remarks.
In order to achieve a language that satisfies us all and complies with the GAC Dublin consensus communiqué, we have to walk a thin line between two points that should be avoided: imposition of unanimity (that could yield to capture) and possibility of majority rule (that should not be permitted).
Julia's proposal has been carefully crafted to walk that line. And let me add that it is a good faith proposal, which tries to address everyone's concerns, including the ones that originated the inclusion of this Stress Test in the first place, and which constitutes already a major concession for many governments.
Apart from needed language tweaking (such as replacing "seek" for "try to find" as Paul R. suggested), I kindly call and invite you to read Julia's proposal spirit, and reflect on whether you could live with such a common ground language, in order to put this to bed and move forward with the overall CCWG proposal.
Warm regards,
Rafael
GAC_SPAIN
-----Mensaje original-----
De: s18-bounces@icann.org [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org <s18-bounces@icann.org>] En nombre de Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch
Enviado el: martes, 17 de noviembre de 2015 7:00
Para: sdelbianco@netchoice.org
CC: s18@icann.org
Asunto: Re: [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal
Dear Steve
In what is the third variation different from the second?
How would the two variations answer and adress the call for flexibility for ACs in defining consensus contained in the GAC Dublin consensus?
I feel they do not and that the solution is not to impose one definition, but to find a narrow path between unanimity (which should not be imposed) and majority rule (which should not be allowed).
Without that narrow line, any AC to which such a definition would apply would easily be captured by one single delegate/member or a very tiny minority, without any possibility to react to such a situation.
This narrow line is in my view achieved in Julia's proposal.
Hence I urge colleagues to work on that proposal, which already channels significantly the principle of flexibility on defining consensus called by the GAC in Dublin.
regards
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 17.11.2015 um 00:37 schrieb Steve DelBianco < sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>:
Mathieu asked me to document some variations on the Common Ground proposal that circulated before today's ST18 call.
I showed the original text in column 1 of the attached 1-page document.
I added three "bracketed" variations on using a footnote, per discussion on today's call:
The 1st bracketed text is a close copy of Denmark's original.
The 2nd bracketed text documents the GAC's present practice for consensus.
The 3rd bracketed text indicates GAC consensus matches whatever the UN is practicing as "consensus" at that time.
-
Steve DelBianco
Executive Director
NetChoice
http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/ <http://www.NetChoice.org%3chttp:/www.netchoice.org/>> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/ <http://blog.netchoice.org%3chttp:/blog.netchoice.org/>>
+1.703.615.6206
<Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.pdf> <Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.docx> _______________________________________________
S18 mailing list
S18@icann.org<mailto: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
_______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
Rafael, With respect, your concerns are a red herring. It is entirely up to the GAC to govern itself. On the majority rule concern, where is that even a possibility as long as Operating Principle 47 remains in place? Operating Principle 47 currently states: The GAC works on the basis of seeking consensus among its membership. Consistent with United Nations practice[1], consensus is understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection. Where consensus is not possible, the Chair shall convey the full range of views expressed by members to the ICANN Board. The unanimity concern is also overblown as demonstrated by the final sentence in OP 47. . The full consensus requirement would not prevent (1) the GAC from sending advice to the Board in the form of options of varying support or (2) the Board from considering those advisory options and approving one. This provision would only clarify how the Board would treat the advice received from the GAC. In that, the only practical effect would be that advice that is not adopted by full consensus would not trigger the Board's obligation to "try , in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution." In fact, the Board could even still decide to do that, it just would not be under an obligation. I have to say, this seems to be an attempt to embed constraints on the Board to reject GAC advice while keeping open the possibility down the line of changing OP 47 so that a majority of the GAC could take advantage of those constraints. 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 -----Original Message----- From: s18-bounces@icann.org [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Perez Galindo, Rafael Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 4:28 AM To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; sdelbianco@netchoice.org Cc: s18@icann.org Subject: Re: [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal Let me chime in to support Jorge's remarks. In order to achieve a language that satisfies us all and complies with the GAC Dublin consensus communiqué, we have to walk a thin line between two points that should be avoided: imposition of unanimity (that could yield to capture) and possibility of majority rule (that should not be permitted). Julia's proposal has been carefully crafted to walk that line. And let me add that it is a good faith proposal, which tries to address everyone's concerns, including the ones that originated the inclusion of this Stress Test in the first place, and which constitutes already a major concession for many governments. Apart from needed language tweaking (such as replacing "seek" for "try to find" as Paul R. suggested), I kindly call and invite you to read Julia's proposal spirit, and reflect on whether you could live with such a common ground language, in order to put this to bed and move forward with the overall CCWG proposal. Warm regards, Rafael GAC_SPAIN -----Mensaje original----- De: s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Enviado el: martes, 17 de noviembre de 2015 7:00 Para: sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> CC: s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal Dear Steve In what is the third variation different from the second? How would the two variations answer and adress the call for flexibility for ACs in defining consensus contained in the GAC Dublin consensus? I feel they do not and that the solution is not to impose one definition, but to find a narrow path between unanimity (which should not be imposed) and majority rule (which should not be allowed). Without that narrow line, any AC to which such a definition would apply would easily be captured by one single delegate/member or a very tiny minority, without any possibility to react to such a situation. This narrow line is in my view achieved in Julia's proposal. Hence I urge colleagues to work on that proposal, which already channels significantly the principle of flexibility on defining consensus called by the GAC in Dublin. regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 17.11.2015 um 00:37 schrieb Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>>: Mathieu asked me to document some variations on the Common Ground proposal that circulated before today's ST18 call. I showed the original text in column 1 of the attached 1-page document. I added three "bracketed" variations on using a footnote, per discussion on today's call: The 1st bracketed text is a close copy of Denmark's original. The 2nd bracketed text documents the GAC's present practice for consensus. The 3rd bracketed text indicates GAC consensus matches whatever the UN is practicing as "consensus" at that time. - Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206 <Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.pdf> <Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.docx> _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org<mailto: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
Thanks a lot Steve, and thanks to the first commenters. As a reminder, the conclusion from our call is that, following Jorge’s suggestion, we would welcome proposals to adjust / enhance the Denmark proposal. We will do our best to incorporate proposals received by 9 UTC Wednesday in time for our next call. Best Mathieu De : s18-bounces@icann.org [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Steve DelBianco Envoyé : mardi 17 novembre 2015 00:22 À : s18@icann.org Objet : [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal Mathieu asked me to document some variations on the Common Ground proposal that circulated before today’s ST18 call. I showed the original text in column 1 of the attached 1-page document. I added three “bracketed” variations on using a footnote, per discussion on today’s call: The 1st bracketed text is a close copy of Denmark’s original. The 2nd bracketed text documents the GAC’s present practice for consensus. The 3rd bracketed text indicates GAC consensus matches whatever the UN is practicing as “consensus” at that time. — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org <http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org <http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206
Mathieu, That was one suggestion, I do not think that that was agreed by everyone. There were several options discussed and raised during the call and in the comments to the second proposal. One was the status quo, which I am still not convinced is a problem for anyone other than a subset of the GAC. A second was proffered by Paul and I that the GAC should have to give up its privileged advisory authority if It wanted to participate in the Empowered Community. A third 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. I also suggested a compromise where true consensus GAC advice could only be rejected by more than two-thirds of the Board, but lesser consensus advice would remain at the majority threshold. In short, there are many options not the rather binary set presented in the summary that are all based on the GAC proposal. Pardon, but this seems to be pressing forward that option to try and appease 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/> On Nov 17, 2015, at 3:23 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Thanks a lot Steve, and thanks to the first commenters. As a reminder, the conclusion from our call is that, following Jorge’s suggestion, we would welcome proposals to adjust / enhance the Denmark proposal. We will do our best to incorporate proposals received by 9 UTC Wednesday in time for our next call. Best Mathieu De : s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Steve DelBianco Envoyé : mardi 17 novembre 2015 00:22 À : s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Objet : [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal Mathieu asked me to document some variations on the Common Ground proposal that circulated before today’s ST18 call. I showed the original text in column 1 of the attached 1-page document. I added three “bracketed” variations on using a footnote, per discussion on today’s call: The 1st bracketed text is a close copy of Denmark’s original. The 2nd bracketed text documents the GAC’s present practice for consensus. The 3rd bracketed text indicates GAC consensus matches whatever the UN is practicing as “consensus” at that time. — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
Point of information: What is the current UN definition of "consensus"? 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 Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad
On Nov 17, 2015, at 7:13 AM, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Mathieu,
That was one suggestion, I do not think that that was agreed by everyone.
There were several options discussed and raised during the call and in the comments to the second proposal.
One was the status quo, which I am still not convinced is a problem for anyone other than a subset of the GAC.
A second was proffered by Paul and I that the GAC should have to give up its privileged advisory authority if It wanted to participate in the Empowered Community.
A third 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.
I also suggested a compromise where true consensus GAC advice could only be rejected by more than two-thirds of the Board, but lesser consensus advice would remain at the majority threshold.
In short, there are many options not the rather binary set presented in the summary that are all based on the GAC proposal. Pardon, but this seems to be pressing forward that option to try and appease 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/>
On Nov 17, 2015, at 3:23 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote:
Thanks a lot Steve, and thanks to the first commenters.
As a reminder, the conclusion from our call is that, following Jorge’s suggestion, we would welcome proposals to adjust / enhance the Denmark proposal.
We will do our best to incorporate proposals received by 9 UTC Wednesday in time for our next call.
Best Mathieu
De : s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Steve DelBianco Envoyé : mardi 17 novembre 2015 00:22 À : s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Objet : [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal
Mathieu asked me to document some variations on the Common Ground proposal that circulated before today’s ST18 call.
I showed the original text in column 1 of the attached 1-page document.
I added three “bracketed” variations on using a footnote, per discussion on today’s call:
The 1st bracketed text is a close copy of Denmark’s original.
The 2nd bracketed text documents the GAC’s present practice for consensus.
The 3rd bracketed text indicates GAC consensus matches whatever the UN is practicing as “consensus” at that time.
— Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206
_______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
My final contribution of the morning is to suggest that the proper answer might be in the compromise proposed by Brett -- the Board is bound to follow full UN consensus advice ("no objection") absent a 2/3 rejection but can reject by majority non-UN consensus advice. That is an increase in GAC authority and makes me uneasy, but it might be acceptable ... Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: Schaefer, Brett [mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 7:13 AM To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Cc: s18@icann.org Subject: Re: [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal Mathieu, That was one suggestion, I do not think that that was agreed by everyone. There were several options discussed and raised during the call and in the comments to the second proposal. One was the status quo, which I am still not convinced is a problem for anyone other than a subset of the GAC. A second was proffered by Paul and I that the GAC should have to give up its privileged advisory authority if It wanted to participate in the Empowered Community. A third 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. I also suggested a compromise where true consensus GAC advice could only be rejected by more than two-thirds of the Board, but lesser consensus advice would remain at the majority threshold. In short, there are many options not the rather binary set presented in the summary that are all based on the GAC proposal. Pardon, but this seems to be pressing forward that option to try and appease 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/> On Nov 17, 2015, at 3:23 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Thanks a lot Steve, and thanks to the first commenters. As a reminder, the conclusion from our call is that, following Jorge’s suggestion, we would welcome proposals to adjust / enhance the Denmark proposal. We will do our best to incorporate proposals received by 9 UTC Wednesday in time for our next call. Best Mathieu De : s18-bounces@icann.org<mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:s18-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Steve DelBianco Envoyé : mardi 17 novembre 2015 00:22 À : s18@icann.org<mailto:s18@icann.org> Objet : [S18] ST18 -- variations on Denmark's Common Ground proposal Mathieu asked me to document some variations on the Common Ground proposal that circulated before today’s ST18 call. I showed the original text in column 1 of the attached 1-page document. I added three “bracketed” variations on using a footnote, per discussion on today’s call: The 1st bracketed text is a close copy of Denmark’s original. The 2nd bracketed text documents the GAC’s present practice for consensus. The 3rd bracketed text indicates GAC consensus matches whatever the UN is practicing as “consensus” at that time. — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org<mailto:S18@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18 _______________________________________________ S18 mailing list S18@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/s18
participants (10)
-
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Mark Carvell -
Mathieu Weill -
Olga Cavalli -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva -
Perez Galindo, Rafael -
Phil Corwin -
Schaefer, Brett -
Steve DelBianco