[CCWG-ACCT] Rationale for Stress Test 18

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I tend to support this reasoning on the basis that each SOAC decides on
its own method of making decsions.

I also image that any board sitting at time when the GAC gave non
consensus advice would that that fact into account in its considerations.

Making this an issue seems to be a distraction and seems divisive.

Except for the belief that NTIA  and/or congress would not accept a
proposal that did not include this.

I question whether this is a belief in  something true.  Or something
that should be true

Or whether it just represents fear and doubt and that explaining the
fact that GAC advice just gets extra special VIP care but its advice is
not binding.  Yes, the Board seems to snap to when the GAC gives advice,
but it is not bound to do so and could learn to do otherwise if warranted.

avri


On 18-Oct-15 10:03, Perez Galindo, Rafael wrote:
> 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
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus