[CCWG-ACCT] Stress Test 18: bylaw amendment suggestion

Jordan Carter jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Mon Nov 9 18:10:10 UTC 2015


... or, should it stay in the ST-WP, where all this has been done so far?

[my preference would be in ST-WP]

J

On 10 November 2015 at 07:09, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
wrote:

> All - do we need a WP1 call to discuss this? We could squeeze one in and
> have it ready for debate at CCWG on Friday?
>
> Jordan
>
> On 10 November 2015 at 03:48, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Thank-you Pedro for picking-up this discussion after Dublin.
>>
>> Speaking only for myself, I am optimistic that CCWG might agree to apply
>> the same condition for advice from *all* Advisory Committees.  What
>> about a general Advisory Committee amendment along these lines, without
>> singling-out the GAC?
>>
>> For any Advisory Committee where the Board is required to seek a mutually
>> acceptable solution if the Board does not follow that Committee’s advice,
>> the Board should not be required to arbitrate among divergent views within
>> that Committee.  Therefore, the Board shall have no obligation to seek a
>> mutually acceptable solution for Advisory Committee advice that was not
>> supported by consensus among Committee members.
>>
>>
>> Second, regarding your additional request to require more than 2/3
>> majority vote for the board to reject GAC advice.   That has not been
>> discussed in the CCWG, and would be regarded as a bid to enhance the weight
>> of GAC’s advice.
>>
>> I believe that a new +2/3 rule would have to be balanced — by a
>> requirement that any such GAC advice was adopted in the absence of any
>> formal objection.  As you know, this is the GAC’s present rule for
>> decision-making, so this does not impose any change on the GAC.
>>
>> Finally, we’re interested to know the GAC’s reaction to the rationale we
>> provided for Stress Test 18 in Dublin.   I’ve attached revised text for ST
>> 18 that reflects the updated rationale, as approved by Stress Test working
>> party (before Dublin)  This text makes no mention of government ‘capture’
>> and removes the offending language (with my apologies, once again).
>>
>> Am looking forward to seeing you at IGF and welcome additional exchanges
>> of ideas there.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Steve
>>
>>
>> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
>> Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva <pedro.ivo at itamaraty.gov.br>
>> Date: Monday, November 9, 2015 at 11:28 AM
>> To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
>> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Stress Test 18: bylaw amendment suggestion
>>
>> Dear CCWG colleagues,
>>
>> As you are aware, in Dublin the GAC has provided a consensus input with
>> regards to the bylaw amendments derived from ST18. The GAC input was the
>> following:
>>
>> "*The discussions on Stress Test 18 have helped the GAC to have a better
>> understanding of the different views on the issue. In assessing the
>> different rationales presented so far related to Stress Test 18, the GAC
>> considered: *
>>
>>    -
>>
>>    *The need that each and every Advisory Committee ensures that the
>>    advice provided is clear and reflects the consensus view of the Committee; *
>>    -
>>
>>    *The need that each and every Advisory Committee should preserve its
>>    own autonomy in its definition of consensus; *
>>    -
>>
>>    *The value the Board attributes to receiving consensus advice; *
>>    -
>>
>>    *The recommendation of the BGRI WG, as reiterated by the ATRT2, to
>>    set the threshold *
>>
>>    *for the ICANN Board to reject GAC advice to a 2/3 majority voting,
>>    consistent with the threshold established for rejection of ccNSO and GNSO
>>    PDP recommendations.*
>>
>> *In view of the above, having considered concerns expressed by various
>> parties, the GAC agreed to further work on the issue of Stress Test 18, and
>> to submit any further input to the CCWG taking into account the timelines
>> of the CCWG. GAC Members will continue to work within the CCWG to finalise
>> the proposal for enhancing ICANN accountability.*"
>>
>> With the aim of addressing the input given by the GAC in its ICANN 54
>> communiqué and the original concerns expressed by the ST18 proponents, I present
>> for your consideration the following alternative amendments (*underlined*)
>> in ICANN bylaws.
>>
>> *ARTICLE XI: ADVISORY COMMITTEES*
>> *Section 1. GENERAL*
>> *“The Board may create one or more Advisory Committees in addition to
>> those set forth in this Article. Advisory Committee membership may consist
>> of Directors only, Directors and non-directors, or non-directors only, and
>> may also include non-voting or alternate members. Advisory Committees shall
>> have no legal authority to act for ICANN, but shall report their findings
>> and recommendations to the Board.*
>> *Where the ICANN Board is obliged to pay due deference to advice from
>> Advisory Committees and where that advice, if not followed, requires
>> finding mutually agreed solutions for implementation of that advice, the
>> Advisory Committee will make every effort to ensure that the advice
>> provided is clear and reflects the consensus view of the committee. In this
>> context, each Advisory Committee has the right to determine its particular
>> definition of consensus.**” *
>>
>> *ARTICLE XI: ADVISORY COMMITTEES*
>> *Section 2. SPECIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEES*
>> *Item 1.j*
>> *“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 may only be rejected by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of
>> the Board.* *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.”*
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
>> Divisão da Sociedade da Informação
>> Ministério das Relações Exteriores
>> T: +55 61 2030-6609
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Skype: jordancarter
> Web: www.internetnz.nz
>
> *A better world through a better Internet *
>
>


-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ*

+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter
Web: www.internetnz.nz

*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151110/d641c3d3/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list