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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

This makes sense, but isn't it up to the GAC to realize this?

avri



On 17-Nov-15 17:24, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> I completely agree with Keith’s statement below.
>
> But there is another element to the ST18 discussion that has been
> overlooked. Under customary and formal international law, states are
> all sovereign and equal. That is why it is standard procedure for the
> UN to rely on full consensus (no objection from any member). A
> majority of states, for example, cannot require any other state to
> sign a treaty. Any other arrangement would effectively erode state
> sovereignty, making states unequal because a majority of some states
> could impose obligations or commitments on another state or states.
>
>  
>
> Any deviation from full consensus by GAC would have substantially the
> same effect. It could allow one group of states to impose their will
> on other states regarding what advice should be given to the board. In
> deciding whether to follow the Advice, it would also force ICANN to
> choose between following the advice of some states and following the
> preferences of other states. Since ICANN’s policies are effective
> globally, it is only appropriate for GAC advice to be based on a
> global consensus of _/all/_ states. Redefining GAC consensus as
> anything other  than full consensus is inconsistent with sovereignty.
> Further, it dramatically reduces a healthy political constraint on GAC
> advice, opening the door to political conflict, and games of
> dominance, among states over GAC advice.
>
>  
>
> --MM
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Drazek, Keith
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 17, 2015 2:41 PM
> *To:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* [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
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus