[CCWG-ACCT] ST-18 and 2/3 Threshold Proposal

[Drazek, Keith]

Thanks Jorge. I've just sent an email to staff requesting addition to the ST-18 group. I look forward to joining the discussion. Regards, Keith

From: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch]
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 2:55 PM
To: Drazek, Keith; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: AW: ST-18 and 2/3 Threshold Proposal

Dear Keith

We are having very interesting discussions in the ST-18 subgroup. Would be really good to discuss your points there.

Just briefly to respond that the GAC Dublin consensus input to the CCWG supports the autonomy of ACs to establish their own definition of consensus, that for the GAC it is currently so that it decides on its own definition of consensus (which triggers the mutually accepted solution procedure), and that the "decisional role" is being offered not only to the GAC but all interested SO and ACs. As to the 2/3 threshold it is nothing new and it was part of the GAC Dublin consensus input.

This discussion has not been triggered by the GAC, but by the ST18, which has led to discussing to all these interconnected points.

Best regards and hope to discuss further on the details in the ST18-Subgroup

Jorge



Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Drazek, Keith
Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. November 2015 20:41
An: accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] ST-18 and 2/3 Threshold Proposal

All,

Here are my current thoughts on our ongoing discussions around ST-18, the 2/3 threshold issue, and the GAC's participation in the community mechanism:

The CCWG's mandate is to empower the community as a whole to better hold ICANN and its Board accountable. Our mission is not to modify the influence of one SO or AC relative to the Board, or to one another, nor to enable or encourage such change in the future. This process should not be used by individual groups to seek increased influence relative to others. That's why we are proposing a unified community as the sole Designator, and set thresholds for decisions supported by multiple ACs and SOs.

Under the current discussions, it appears that a subset of GAC members want three new "powers" that do not exist today: (1) the right to hold a decisional role in the community mechanism, (2) a 2/3 threshold for Board rejection of consensus advice, and (3) the ability to adjust the definition of consensus that would trigger the Board's special obligations.  Why is the CCWG now focusing on the 11th-hour introduction of the 2/3 board threshold along with flexibility to change current practice on the definition of consensus? Both of those stand to increase the influence of the GAC alone over the Board and other community groups.

No one is trying to tell the GAC how to define consensus for its internal deliberations or advice. Rather, ST-18 simply reinforces the current practice that the Board's obligations kick in only when the GAC's consensus is consistent with current practice - reflecting the UN definition/absence of formal objection. Any change to this practice must be viewed as empowering the GAC alone over the Board and potentially in a disproportionate way relative to others.

By participating in the community mechanism as a co-equal, the GAC will be able to contribute to this joint community empowerment in a decisional way, if it chooses to do so. This is already a big change (that some are uncomfortable with) but it shows that the rest of the community respects the important role of governments and the GAC in our community processes.

In my view, the CCWG should resist pressure to intentionally or inadvertently increase the relative influence of any one group, and stay focused on the joint community empowerment envisioned in our charter. This should not be an opportunity for any group to secure individual benefits they have previously been denied.

Thanks and regards,
Keith


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151117/68a1c5ba/attachment-0001.html>