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

Drazek, Keith kdrazek at verisign.com
Mon Nov 9 20:29:04 UTC 2015


Thanks to Pedro for trying to help the CCWG reach closure on ST-18, but I have to respectfully disagree with this proposal.

The proposed language constitutes substantial changes to the role and influence of the GAC, far exceeding what the CCWG is charged with doing -- coming up with reasonable accountability checks on a post-transition ICANN and not materially recasting the GAC’s position in the community. The intent of ST-18, as part of the accountability discussion, is the preservation of the role and relative influence of governments within ICANN through a clear obligation for the board to give special deference to GAC advice only when there is no formal governmental objection to such advice. This proposal appears to do the opposite by materially recasting the GAC's position.

Under the proposed language for Art. XI, Section 2, Item 1.j:


  1.  The ICANN board would have to engage to find mutually acceptable alternatives to rejected advice no matter how GAC determines its own level of consensus – a major change from GAC Operating Principle 47 and not the focus of the CCWG;


  1.  The board could no longer reject GAC advice by majority vote, another significant change from current, longstanding bylaw practice; and


  1.  The board could only reject such advice by a vote of MORE than two-thirds, a supermajority threshold above and beyond even a two-thirds threshold, which itself would constitute a major bylaw change.

In addition, the proposed language regarding Art. XI, Section 1 would substantially enlarge by clear implication the role of all other ACs. By use of the plural “advisory committees” it implies that the board will be required to engage all ACs in looking for mutually agreed solutions to rejected advice and ACs can determine consensus in any manner they choose. This is far beyond anything the CCWG has discussed.  I believe the proposed text from Steve would give the GAC its desired change here, without implying that ICANN must seek a mutually acceptable solution on any Advisory Committee advice it declines to adopt.

Also, importantly, Fadi told the U.S. Congress in February 2015 that any move to require a 2/3 Board majority to reject GAC advice was “off the table.”  Senator Fischer asked Fadi directly about a proposal to require a 2/3 vote to reject GAC advice. Fadi responded, “That would be incongruent with the stated goals. The board has looked at that matter and has pushed it back so it’s off the table.” Senator Fischer followed up and said, “It’s off the table,” and Fadi again said: “It’s off the table.” This started on the video at the 1:12:50 mark (on the counter on the right) http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2015/2/preserving-the-multistakeholder-model-of-internet-governance  I expect any change on this point might raise some serious and difficult questions.

Accordingly, I support the earlier responses from Steve and Phil.

Regards,
Keith


From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 2:55 PM
To: Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Stress Test 18: bylaw amendment suggestion

Dear Pedro
Yes but the GAC should implement the last part of that consensus text,i.e. To modify ST 18 as soon as possible and submit that to CCWG during the 30 days public comments. The GAC Chair nerds to take immediate action in that regard
Regards
Kavouss


Sent from my iPhone

On 9 Nov 2015, at 15:28, Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva <pedro.ivo at itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:pedro.ivo at itamaraty.gov.br>> wrote:
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<mailto: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/20151109/72004baf/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list