[CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Thu Nov 26 13:55:39 UTC 2015


I agree with Milton.

And this has nothing to do with the standing up and resisting anything. The
NTIA is not opposing a decision of the community. As our co-Chairs have
stated no consensus has been reached on a position that would be at odds
with NTIA's statement. There is not a "strong" choice and a "weak" choice.

But it would be  knee-jerk reaction, bordering on irrational, to say that
because NTIA has taken a position, we need to oppose it.

Greg

On Thursday, November 26, 2015, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

> The GAC's "special bylaw powers" have been justified, although certainly
> not to my satisfaction, by government's special role in determining the
> "public interest". Once the GAC deviates from full consensus the
> justification for it to have a privileged position is dissipated. The
> "public interest" is or isn't. I certainly hope we don't intend to put the
> Board in the unenviable position of having to determine which particular
> government's view of "public interest" is the correct one. Yet some of the
> proposals before us do exactly that.
>
> Ed Morris
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','milton at gatech.edu');>>
> *Sent*: Thursday, November 26, 2015 1:09 PM
> *To*: "avri at acm.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri at acm.org');>" <
> avri at acm.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri at acm.org');>>
> *Cc*: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community at icann.org');>"
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community at icann.org');>
> >
> *Subject*: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18
>
> I don't agree that the NTIA statement makes GAC or governments less equal
> as a stakeholder. It is the GAC's special bylaw power to have its advice
> impose special requirements on the board that makes the GAC "first among
> equals". And those are the GAC's own words. To have less than full
> consensus for the special advising power is to make the GAC more than equal
> and to further empower it within ICANN in a way that is unacceptable to
> most non state actors, to Congress as well as the NTIA. The GAC has already
> been strengthened by becoming a voting member of the community mechanism.
> It is always been unreasonable for it to get this additional power and also
> ask for relaxed thresholds for its advice.
>
> Milton L Mueller
> Professor, School of Public Policy
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
> > On Nov 26, 2015, at 05:15, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri at acm.org');>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > As long as we do as we are told, i am sure we can achieve a result that
> > is acceptable to NTIA.
> >
> > What is obvious to me now, is that not only did the NTIA want a solution
> > that was not dominated by governments, a goal I strongly agree with,
> > they also did not want a solution where the GAC stands with equal
> > footing as a stakeholder, which makes me uneasy.
> >
> > But we can be thankful, at least we now know what we must do it we want
> > approval. Before now there was ambiguity because as long as the
> > solution did not give government primacy I thought we would be ok. Now
> > I realize we can't even have equality.
> >
> > This is not disarray but well ordered. We had one serious issue pending
> > and now that has been taken off the table. We can expect that GAC will
> > not be able to approval of the accountability proposal as I expect that
> > will be at least one more member of the GAC disappointed enough to
> > formally object to the solution as constrained by NTIA. So as long as
> > the solution is acceptable to all the SOs and to ALAC, while still be ok
> > with the latest NTIA condition, we should be successful at reaching the
> > end of the discussion.
> >
> > We also have a good indication of the power of NTIA over ICANN as a
> > backstop for any who doubted that power. Anytime the US speaks, ICANN
> > jumps.
> >
> > We should rejoice and be thankful as we have less to decide upon.
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> >> On 26-Nov-15 04:01, Nigel Roberts wrote:
> >> Jordan is right.
> >>
> >> Mr Strickling, from the beginning, it seems to me has done two things,
> >> both of which were intended to be, and objectively are, helpful.
> >>
> >> 1. Clearly set out the criteria under which the NTIA will transfer
> >> the legal oversight it has historically asserted over ICANN under
> >> statutory power, to the private sector (i.e. to the global stakeholder
> >> community.
> >>
> >> 2. Occasionally provided the odd 'nudge' in 'the right direction'
> >>
> >> No-one who has attended ICANN meetings or CCWG F2F should be in any
> >> doubt of the wishes of the USG in regards to certain important matters
> >> in the developing proposal.
> >>
> >> And I made sure to read his blog posts in this regard, too.
> >>
> >> This intervention is simply another, carefully written and diplomatic,
> >> clie that tells us what we (the CCWG) need to do to unlock the
> >> achievement of transition.
> >>
> >> The Government of the United States is 'first among equals' in this
> >> discussion.
> >>
> >> Its views have to be given a different weight, as Jordan correctly
> notes.
> >>
> >> Some appear to recommend the CCWG resist.
> >>
> >> Resistance would be futile.
> >>
> >> It would also be foolish, I submit.
> >>
> >> But then, so far as I can see, the accountability exercise appears to
> >> be in such disarray anyway, that even if you took the advice being
> >> proffered here, it's quite doubtful you are going to achieve an
> >> acceptable proposal withing the self-imposed time frames.
> >>
> >> But maybe I'm missing something.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 26/11/15 03:47, Jordan Carter 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','arun.sukumar at orfonline.org');> <mailto:
> arun.sukumar at orfonline.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/>
> >>> +91-9871943272 <tel:%2B91-9871943272>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Phil Buckingham
> >>> <phil at dotadvice.co.uk
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','phil at dotadvice.co.uk');> <mailto:
> phil at dotadvice.co.uk
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Email:phil at dotadvice.co.uk');>
> >>> <mailto:Email%3Aphil at dotadvice.co.uk
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Email%253Aphil at dotadvice.co.uk');>>____
> >>>
> >>> Skype: philip.buckingham14____
> >>>
> >>> Mobile: 00 44 (0)7957643357
> >>> <tel:00%2044%20%280%297957643357>____
> >>>
> >>> LinkedIn: Phil Buckingham____
> >>>
> >>> __ __
> >>>
> >>> __ __
> >>>
> >>> __ __
> >>>
> >>> __ __
> >>>
> >>> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>
> >>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>
> >
> >>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>
> >>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sradell at ntia.doc.gov');> <mailto:
> sradell at ntia.doc.gov
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sradell at ntia.doc.gov');>>____/
> >>>
> >>> /202-482-3167____/
> >>>
> >>> __ __
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org');>
> >>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org');>
> >>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan at internetnz.net.nz');> <mailto:
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan at internetnz.net.nz');>>
> >>> Skype: jordancarter
> >>> Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz>
> >>>
> >>> /A better world through a better Internet /
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/20151126/4363dfc6/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list