[CCWG-ACCT] revised text for Stress Test 18

[Olga Cavalli]

+1 to Jorge´s comments
regards
Olga

2015-07-30 15:58 GMT-03:00 <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>:

> Dear all
>
> If my recollection is right consensus within GAC was only defined in 2011.
>
> So perhaps qualifying it as "strong" consensus and quoting part of the
> definition adopted only in 2011 is not entirely accurate.
>
> We should probably stick to the exact facts. Also -as is done- that GAC is
> still trying to reach common ground on this topic.
>
> regards
>
> Jorge
>
> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>
> Am 30.07.2015 um 20:52 schrieb Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org
> <mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>>:
>
> Updated per discussion we just had on the CCWG call:
> Note that the proposed Bylaws change for Stress Test 18 does not interfere
> with the GAC’s method of decision-making.  If the GAC decided to adopt
> advice by majority voting or methods other than today’s consensus process,
> ICANN would still be obligated to give GAC advice due consideration:
> “advice shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and
> adoption of policies.”
> Moreover, ICANN would still have to explain why GAC advice was not
> followed:  “In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action
> that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it
> shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to
> follow that advice.”
> The only effect of this Bylaws change is to limit the kind of advice where
> ICANN is obligated to “try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient
> manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution”.  That delicate and
> sometimes difficult consultation requirement would only apply for GAC
> advice that was approved by consensus.
> From the beginning of ICANN through the present, the GAC has used a strong
> consensus rule for its decisions, “consensus is understood to mean the
> practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any
> formal objection.” The proposed bylaws change recognizes that GAC may wish
> to consider, if necessary, amending its consensus rule to something less
> than “in the absence of any formal objection” while still requiring ICANN
> to try “to find a mutually acceptable solution.”
> NTIA gave specific requirements for this transition, including advice that
> Stress Test 18 is a direct test of the requirement to avoid significant
> expansion of the role of governments in ICANN decision-making. The proposed
> Bylaws change is therefore an important part of the community’s proposal.
> It is noted that GAC Representatives are continuing to discuss the
> proposal.
>
>
>
> From: Steve DelBianco
> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 11:25 AM
> To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>"
> Cc: ACCT-Staff
> Subject: revised text for Stress Test 18
>
> Per this morning’s CCWG call, I drafted 2 paragraphs for ST 18 (see yellow
> text attached and below).
>
> First is to remind GAC that they can define consensus.
> Second is to note dissent from 3 GAC reps and that GAC is still discussing.
>
> Note that the proposed Bylaws change for Stress Test 18 does not interfere
> with the GAC’s method of decision-making.  If the GAC decided to adopt
> advice by majority voting or methods other than today’s consensus process,
> ICANN would still be obligated to give GAC advice due consideration:
> “advice shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and
> adoption of policies.”
> Moreover, ICANN would still have to explain why GAC advice was not
> followed:  “In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action
> that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it
> shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to
> follow that advice.”
> The only effect of this Bylaws change is to limit the kind of advice where
> ICANN is obligated to “try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient
> manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution”.  That delicate and
> sometimes difficult consultation requirement would only apply for GAC
> advice that was approved by consensus.
> From the beginning of ICANN through the present, the GAC has used a strong
> consensus rule for its decisions, “consensus is understood to mean the
> practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any
> formal objection.” The proposed bylaws change recognizes that GAC may amend
> its consensus rule to something less than “in the absence of any formal
> objection” while still requiring ICANN to try “to find a mutually
> acceptable solution.”
> NTIA gave specific requirements for this transition, including advice that
> Stress Test 18 is a direct test of the requirement to avoid significant
> expansion of the role of governments in ICANN decision-making. The proposed
> Bylaws change is therefore an important part of the community’s proposal.
> It is noted that GAC Representatives from Argentina, Brazil, and France do
> not support the proposed Bylaws change, and the GAC is continuing to
> discuss the proposal.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150730/4da68e61/attachment.html>