[CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18

Thu Nov 26 03:58:05 UTC 2015

Jordan, perhaps I am looking at this with too critical an eye, but the note
does not seem to have the benign effect of sharing the NTIA's view: let me
highlight two separate but somewhat contradictory statements in this note:

"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."

and elsewhere..

>
> "But the right place to deal with that issue [of single-country veto] is
> not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full
> discussion of this issue within the GAC. "

So on the one hand, NTIA feels the GAC's autonomy to define consensus must
be limited (to shield the Board from a difficult position etc etc)  but on
the other, the GAC is well-equipped internally to deal with the intractable
veto concern? Why not let the GAC evaluate its impact of fractured advice
on the Board - surely governments understand the negative consequences of
engaging the Board in a push-and-pull exercise?

In any event, as I wrote previously, this is for GAC colleagues to discuss.
The message, however, does not inspire confidence.

-- 
Head, Cyber Initiative
Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi
http://amsukumar.tumblr.com
+91-9871943272

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
wrote:

> hi Arun,
>
> I think you are eliding two things in an unfortunate way - the GAC
> decision-making process, and the fact of the United States using its
> leverage in the transition discussion. The fact that NTIA has set out
> requirements for the transition to occur, and sharing its view about ST18's
> importance in validating one of those requirements, is not a commentary on
> decision-making in GAC.
>
> Or am I missing something?
>
> best
> Jordan
>
>
>
> On 26 November 2015 at 16:43, Arun Mohan Sukumar <
> arun.sukumar at orfonline.org> wrote:
>
>> Thank you for posting NTIA's comment on this, Suzanne.
>>
>> It is for GAC colleagues in the CCWG to weigh in on Assistant Secretary
>> Strickling's note. What concerns me is the NTIA's effort to intervene at
>> this crucial stage in ST 18 discussions. Frankly, it defeats the spirit of
>> compromise that the CCWG has been striving for on this issue. The NTIA
>> suggests GAC should not be worried about a "single country veto", when it
>> is exercising precisely that during this important exercise.
>>
>> Apologies for what may sound like harsh words: the CCWG is well attuned
>> to attempts by one powerful stakeholder to steer the debate, and has so far
>> resisted/responded to them admirably. One hopes this will be no exception.
>>
>> Best,
>> Arun
>>
>>
>> --
>> Head, Cyber Initiative
>> Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi
>> http://amsukumar.tumblr.com
>> +91-9871943272
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Phil Buckingham <phil at dotadvice.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 <sradell at ntia.doc.gov>*
>>>
>>> *202-482-3167*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Skype: jordancarter
> Web: www.internetnz.nz
>
> *A better world through a better Internet *
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151126/fe8799aa/attachment-0001.html>