[CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18

Thu Nov 26 00:00:44 UTC 2015

Hello Suzanne,

Thank you for the NTIA's timely comments and suggestions.

Regards,

Phil

Phil Buckingham

CEO,Dot Advice Limited

Email:phil at dotadvice.co.uk

Skype: philip.buckingham14

Mobile: 00 44 (0)7957643357

LinkedIn: Phil Buckingham

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Radell, Suzanne
Sent: 25 November 2015 22:33
To: Accountability Cross Community
Cc: ACCT-Staff
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18

Hello everyone, Assistant Secretary Strickling has asked that I share this
with the CCWG.  Best regards, Suz

NTIA Statement on Stress Test 18

November 25, 2015

NTIA has been closely following the discussions in the CCWG-Accountability,
including the recently concluded small group on stress test 18.  As has been
the case throughout the work of the CCWG, we are impressed by the time and
dedication so many of you are putting into these important discussions.  We
thank everyone for their efforts as the group works to finalize the proposal
for publication on November 30.  

NTIA has long believed that governments, like all stakeholders, have an
important role to play within multistakeholder processes, including ICANN.
Our position on that has not changed.  As the CCWG finalizes its proposals
for enhancing ICANN's accountability, we feel we should reiterate our view,
as we stated last July, that ICANN preserve and clarify the current practice
of the Board  in responding to advice it receives from the Governmental
Advisory Committee (GAC).  Specifically, ICANN should amend its Bylaws to
clarify that the Board is required to enter into a formal consultation
process with the GAC only where it receives GAC advice that is consensus
advice based on the current definition within the GAC's Operating
Principles, that is, advice to which no GAC member has raised a formal
objection.  

We want to make clear that nothing about this proposal is intended to limit
how the GAC determines what advice it submits to the Board.  As the Bylaws
make clear, the Board is obligated to duly take all GAC advice into account.
However, it is not practicable for the Board to give GAC advice special
consideration unless it is consensus advice as currently defined in the GAC
Operating Principles.  Anything less than consensus places the Board in the
awkward, if not impossible, position of trying to choose between governments
with conflicting opinions.  NTIA sees any deviation from the current
standard of consensus as introducing instability into the system while also
inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments.  Accordingly,
every time the GAC provides consensus advice that it expects to trigger the
special Bylaws consideration from the Board, it must be unambiguous and
consistent with the current definition in the Operating Principles.  Asking
the Board to interpret any other threshold of support seems counter to the
spirit of the CCWG's efforts to empower the community in a clear and
consistent manner.  It also undermines the work done to implement the
relevant recommendations of ATRT1 to fix what the community diagnosed as a
dysfunctional Board-GAC relationship.

We are aware that some countries are concerned that the current GAC
Operating Principles could lead to a single-country veto of GAC advice to
the detriment of other countries.  We too share that concern.  But the right
place to deal with that issue is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a
more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC.  NTIA stands
ready to participate in and contribute to such a discussion to resolve that
concern at the appropriate time and place. 

Suzanne Murray Radell

Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA

sradell at ntia.doc.gov

202-482-3167

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151126/56ca302b/attachment-0001.html>