[CCWG-ACCT] Rationale for Stress Test 18

[Olga Cavalli]

Thanks Rafael for your cooments.
Argentina supports them.
Best regards
Olga

2015-10-18 6:03 GMT-03:00 Perez Galindo, Rafael <RPEREZGA at minetur.es>:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151018/89a3a525/attachment.html>