[CCWG-ACCT] Rationale for Stress Test 18

[Perez Galindo, Rafael]

Dear Paul

Respectfully, I do not feel you are stating facts as many of us in the GAC and other stakeholder groups see them, and as the Bylaws lay down.

I want to remind you that when this ST 18 was first proposed, a year ago as you say, we were told it was meant to avoid "capture" of the Board by governments. We have been discussing about this in the working groups and trying to understand how an advisory body could capture a decision-making body by means of advice.

The fact is that you and others always forget to mention in your arguments that the Board can turn down GAC advice by simple majority of its members. This is key! (Article XI-2-1-k of the Bylaws). 

Being true that the Board is obliged to enter into an engagement process with the GAC to try to find a mutually agreeable solution, never forget that if after this step there is no agreed solution, the Board can just reject GAC advice and move forward with their own decisión, by only providing a rationale to do so, and by simple majority of its members. 

So, the engagement process is not a negotiation, and it does not oblige the Board to move its position by a millimeter at all. Where is the accountability issue?  

In addition to this facts, only a couple of weeks ago, things have sort of changed, and we have been told that this not about capture anymore (Steve del Bianco), but still a requisite for the Transition that the NTIA has set. In this regard, I kindly ask you to explain how ST 18 relates to the 5 requirements set out in March 2014 by the NTIA, because I confess myself incapable of finding the match, once the "capture" rationale has dissapeared out of lack of substance.

On the other hand, and talking about capture, let me re-state that we should avoid capture by any stakeholder. One could say that as 2/3 of the Board is required to reject a supermajority-approved PDP, the GNSO has actually much more power than the GAC.  

And let me end by re-iterating what I said in Paris. We are for consensus as the best means for the GAC to give advice to the Board. And we are absolutely against an expansion of governments role. But we are as well against having a hair cut because some would like to take advantage of the opportunity the Transition gives.

Looking forward to finding a mutually agreeable solution, 

Rafael 

GAC_SPAIN 


 

________________________________________
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig [paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com]
Sent: 17 October 2015 20:46
To: 'Eric Brunner-Williams'; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Rationale for Stress Test 18

Really?  I would think the exact opposite.  After a year of dilation and delay the GAC has failed to articulate why it is “just like” any other AC (such that its internal processes should be its own business) in the face of its Bylaw-privleged ability to command the Board to negotiate.  As most of us have recognized, so long as the GAC has that privileged position and has the ability to compel Board consideration in a way that other ACs do not, its internal processes do, necessarily, create an accountability issue.  That’s something that the overwhelming majority of the community has recognized with only a few outliers.

For myself, I would prefer to strip the GAC of its privileged position – in which case I would be content for them to use whatever process they want.  But that, alas, does not command a broad consensus either.

Cheers
Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>


From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net]
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 1:42 PM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Rationale for Stress Test 18

On 10/17/15 9:51 AM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
In GAC session today, some said they did not understand why we needed Stress Test 18.

While January is quite a long time ago, even in ICANN process development time, at the time when the BC provided their scenarios to "Work Group #4" I wrote:


--
BC  #6. GAC votes

The accountability issue here isn't obvious to me. The bylaws create several Advisory Councils, each of which may have distinct internal processes resulting in the issuance of advice. A change in any AC's internal process does not necessarily create an accountability issue.

I suggest this item should be discarded.

Here we are, still using our very finite time, on a scenario the better part of a year's aging has not improved.

Eric Brunner-Williams
Eugene, Oregon