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

Wed Nov 11 21:24:31 UTC 2015

Dear Pedro

I generally applaud your proposal as a valuable input from Brazil's
perspective into the GAC's consideration of this issue as the committee
follows up its consideration in Dublin of the key elements of the issues
raised by Stress Test 18 as recorded in the communique. However, I
agree with Finn's point that "*make every effort to*" strikes me as a
variant on what the GAC agreed in Dublin and so I support his suggestion to
you therefore that you might delete that element of your text proposal.

The key point which I wish to underline in the context of this comment on
your proposal is the UK's position that the GAC should make *irrevocably*
clear to CCWG colleagues that the GAC will continue to fulfil its role in,
and commitment to, the ICANN community through the provision of
consensus-based advice to the Board. As I have made clear in previous
statements, the UK would oppose any proposal to derogate from that specific
commitment.

Kind regards

Mark

Mark Carvell
United Kingdom Representative on the Govenmental Advisory Committee of ICANN

Mark Carvell
Global Internet Governance Policy
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk
tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062

On 11 November 2015 at 17:06, Finn Petersen <FinPet at erst.dk> wrote:

> Dear Pedro,
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for your efforts in operationalizing the GAC consensus
> input regarding ST 18 into bylaw text from Brazil's perspective. This is
> certainly not an easy task.
>
>
> Here are a few comments from our side:
>
>
> ·         In our view the GAC consensus input does not include a mention
> of *"will make every effort to ensure",* as such, and to be true to GAC’s
> consensus input, *"make every effort to"* should be deleted (marked with
> brackets in the text below).
>
>
> ·         With regard to Bullit point 3 *"The value the Board attributes
> to receiving consensus advice",*we are of the view that the underlying
> purpose, will not be reflected adequately if the current definition of GAC
> consensus advice changes. The reason is that the Board will be put in an
> awkward position in situations where there is no agreement between
> governments.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Finn
>
> Sendt fra min iPad
>
> Den 9. nov. 2015 kl. 11.32 skrev Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva <
> pedro.ivo at itamaraty.gov.br>:
>
> 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
>
>
> This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus
> service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM
> Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your
> organisations IT Helpdesk.
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
> recorded for legal purposes.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151111/6b987bd3/attachment-0001.html>