[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: AW: Engagement request from CCWG regarding GAC decision making

Tue Mar 17 10:04:41 UTC 2015

Hi Eberhard,
A copy of the letter can be found on the wiki at
https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Letter+to+CCWG-Accountabi
lity+CoChairs
Best regards
Alice 

On 3/17/15 10:28 AM, "Dr Eberhard Lisse" <el at lisse.NA> wrote:

>This is hardly readable due to the formatting.
>
>el
>
>On 2015-03-17 11:23, Mathieu Weill wrote:
>> Dear Colleagues,
>> 
>> Please find below a response to our request by Thomas Schneider, Chair
>> of the GAC, relating to our stress test #14 (amendment of GAC's
>> operating procedures). Please note that this response is based on his
>> own experience as well as exchanges with some GAC members.
>> 
>> I suggest we discuss this in our call later today when we come to the
>> WP-ST update.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Mathieu
>> 
>> 
>> -------- Message transféré --------
>> Sujet : 	AW: Engagement request from CCWG regarding GAC decision making
>> Date : 	Tue, 17 Mar 2015 02:56:55 +0000
>> De : 	Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch
>> Pour : 	Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr, rickert at anwaelte.de,
>>leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
>> Copie à : 	adam.peake at icann.org, gac at icann.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Co-Chairs of the CCWG Accountability, dear Thomas, Leon and Mathieu
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you for your request for input from the GAC on the prospect of a
>>contingency induced by a potential change in the GAC's decision making
>>procedures. And thank you all for the good exchange we had on the phone
>>last week. 
>> 
>> Given the short time available, it has not been possible to undertake
>>broad consultations with the whole GAC about this issue. In this
>>situation, I can only give you some feedback based on my own experience
>>as well as exchanges I had with some GAC members in the past days. I
>>hope you will get more feedback from GAC members and observers before,
>>during and after the f2f meeting of the CCWG in Istanbul next week.
>> 
>> First of all, I - like many of my colleagues - do not really see a
>>contingency related to the GAC as a body with regard to the CCWG's Work
>>Stream 1 (accountability related to the IANA functions). As we do not
>>recall the GAC having had an role in the IANA stewardship function so
>>far and as one of the conditions put forward by the NTIA is that no
>>other single country or intergovernmental body should take over the IANA
>>stewardship role, it is difficult to see why the GAC's operating
>>principles should have an effect on the IANA stewardship function at
>>all. 
>> 
>> With regard to the overall accountability of ICANN (WS2), the GAC may
>>indeed have a role in contributing to enhancing ICANN's accountability
>>and to the organisations' checks and balances in the future.
>> 
>> However, it should be noted that - unlike the GNSO or the ccNSO - the
>>GAC does not develop or decide about policies, but is - in its role as
>>advisory body of the ICANN board - giving advice to the board on public
>>policy matters. The board can either ask the GAC for advice on an issue
>>or the GAC can advise the board on its own initiative. In both cases,
>>according to the current bylaws, the board is only asked to take GAC
>>advice "duly into account", but is not obliged to follow GAC advice. In
>>case the board decides not to follow GAC advice, the board shall inform
>>the GAC about its reasons for not doing so and will try to find a
>>mutually acceptable solution. If no such solution is found, the board is
>>still free to take its decision without the GAC as a committee having
>>any means to force the board to follow its advice. It is then up to
>>individual GAC members to act according to their "rights and obligations
>>... with regard to public policy issues falling within their responsib
> il
>>  ities".
>>  
>> 
>> According to its operating principles, the GAC works on "the basis of
>>seeking consensus among its membership". Where consensus is not
>>possible, the chair shall "convey the full range of views expressed by
>>members" to the ICANN board. So, under the current operating principles,
>>the GAC may address advice to the board which is either informing the
>>board about a GAC consensus or about the existence of diverse views
>>among its membership on an issue. Again, the board should then take this
>>advice "duly into account". In the past, there have been several
>>examples where there has been a diversity of views among GAC members on
>>an issue which have been communicated to the board.
>> 
>> In the current operating principles, it is not specified how - in the
>>case of diverse views in the GAC on an issue - this diversity should be
>>communicated to the board. In the attempt to enhance accountability of
>>ICANN's processes as well as the accountability of governments to their
>>citizens and the global community, but also to improve ICANN's checks
>>and balances and to avoid any risk of capture by an individual or a
>>small group of governments, it may be useful to enhance transparency
>>about the range and spread of diversity of views among GAC members, so
>>that - before taking a decision - the board is best informed about this
>>diversity and also the whole community is able to see on what basis GAC
>>advice is formulated and that it is able to assess to what extent such
>>advice has been "duly taken into account".
>> 
>> I am happy to discuss with you how the GAC can help to contribute to
>>enhancing ICANN's accountability and I am sure that other GAC members
>>(and observers) will contribute to this deliberations as well.
>> 
>> I am looking forward to a fruitful and constructive discussion in
>>Istanbul
>> 
>> Best regards
>> 
>> Thomas
>> 
>> 
>> Thomas Schneider
>> chair of the GAC
>> 
>> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr]
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. März 2015 17:43
>> An: Olga Cavalli; Suzanne Radell; Julia Katja Wolman;
>>brumark at telia.com; alice at apc.org; Schneider Thomas BAKOM
>> Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Thomas Rickert; Adam Peake
>> Betreff: Engagement request from CCWG regarding GAC decision making
>> 
>> Dear GAC members of the CCWG Accountability, Dear Thomas,
>> 
>> [Cc: CCWG Co-chairs]
>> 
>> As you are aware, the CCWG Accountability has identified a number of
>>contingencies and is applying stress tests to its proposals to check how
>>they would mitigate them.
>> 
>> Consistent with the principle set out by the NTIA that the transition
>>proposals should not replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an
>>intergovernmental organization solution, one of the identified
>>contingency is currently defined as such :
>> 
>> Governments in ICANN¹s Government Advisory Committee (GAC) amend their
>>operating procedures to change from consensus decisions to majority
>>voting for advice to ICANN¹s board.
>> 
>> Consequence: Under current bylaws, ICANN must consider and respond to
>>GAC advice, even if that advice were not supported by consensus. [...]
>> 
>> While investigating whether the measures currently proposed by the CCWG
>>would provide adequate mitigation, concerns were raised that, despite
>>the ability for the community to veto a Board decision, changes in the
>>GAC decision making rules might infringe on the principle set out by the
>>NTIA.
>> 
>> It was proposed within the CCWG that a mitigating measure might be to
>>amend Icann Bylaws so that the provision of article XI 2.1.j of the
>>Bylaws (duly taking into account GAC Advice) would only apply to
>>consensus advice (see current proposal here :
>> 
>>https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888421/Accountability%
>>20Mechanism%20Template%20WP1%204A%20-%20GAC%20consensus.pdf?version=1&mod
>>ificationDate=1425289292000&api=v2).
>> 
>> 
>> Some similarity could be drawn out from the gNSO policy recommendations
>>Bylaw provisions (Annex A, 9.a) where supermajority votes from the gNSO
>>can only be vetoed by the Board if there is a 2/3 majority to do so.
>> 
>> We are aware of the high sensitivity of this question within the GAC as
>>well as with the community. The GAC is also one of the chartering
>>organizations of the CCWG Accountability. Therefore our group wishes to
>>engage with the GAC to identify how we can meet both the NTIA
>>requirements and a solution that is consistent with the GAC expectations.
>> 
>> Ideally, we would welcome inputs via GAC appointed members to the CCWG
>>and/or specific discussions between ourselves.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill Co-chairs, CCWG
>>Accountability
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> 
>
>-- 
>Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
>el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
>PO Box 8421             \     /
>Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community