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

Wed Nov 18 08:32:48 UTC 2015

Hi,

I had not meant to start a parallel thread. 

But if answering an email means I need to join another list, and since a
kind suggestion is a very strong rebuke, can someone please add me to
the appropriate list?

avri

On 18-Nov-15 00:57, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> I think the GAC is mindful of the need of a very high degree of consensus - that is why it always has voluntarily committed to this rule.
>
> At the same time, I feel we all are also mindful of the GAC's merely advisory nature where decisions are taken by a private-led body in a very fastly evolving environment - i.e. far away from deciding on international law or treaties as Milton seems to suggest. After all we are not in the UN system...
>
> However, I would kindly suggest not to open parallel tracks and to take part in the discussions in the subgroup.
>
> regards
>
> Jorge
>
> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>
>> Am 18.11.2015 um 00:09 schrieb Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> 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