[CCWG-ACCT] On Stress Test 18

Wed Oct 28 17:22:46 UTC 2015

Paul — you suggest CCWG should somehow prevent GAC from changing its own operating principles<https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Operating+Principles>, regarding how they make decisions.  But an approach that interferes with GAC (or any AC/SO) prerogative to make its own rules…seems to me a blunt instrument that will meet fierce resistance.

Far better, don’t you think, to amend ICANN bylaws regarding how ICANN is obliged to respond to GAC advice.  From the start, that’s all we have ever proposed in CCWG:  to require ICANN to seek a mutually acceptable solution only when the GAC advice was supported by consensus of governments.

That approach avoids embroiling ICANN’s board in resolving differences among sovereign governments in the GAC.
It provides the incentive for GAC to reach consensus when it wants its advice to be taken most seriously.
And it avoids telling an AC/SO how it must make decisions.

—Steve

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig
Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 4:35 PM
To: 'Arun Mohan Sukumar', 'Greg Shatan'
Cc: 'Accountability Cross Community'
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] On Stress Test 18

Arun

Don’t let them change your mind.  Though the GAC members may assert othewrisie, your summary is accurate.  The GAC has reached consensus that it should retain the unilateral ability to change its own definition of consensus while at the same time agreeing that the Board should continue to give the GAC’s consensus advice the same value it currently attributes to consensus advice.  This is not “accepting” Stress Test 18 it is deliberately avoiding the hard choice.

The issue remains – will GAC advice continue to require Board negotiation, a privilege given to no other advisory committee?  If it will then will the GAC agree that it cannot unilaterally change the definition of consensus?  I see nothing in the communique that resolves that – nor any recognition by the GAC that all of the other commenters in the public comment process have disagreed with its position and supported the Bylaw modification that answers ST18.  There is only a recognition of the problem and a continued promse to “work within CCWG.”  All that is well and good – but it doesn’t change the issue which (save for  your inadvertent misattribution of Denmark’s views) you  have correctly summarized.

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: Arun Mohan Sukumar [mailto:arun.sukumar at orfonline.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 2:12 PM
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] On Stress Test 18

Hi Olga,

This is the operative part of the Dublin communique on ST18.

The GAC considered:

1. The need that each and every Advisory Committee ensures that the advice provided is clear and reflects the consensus view of the Committee;
2. The need that each and every Advisory Committee should preserve its own autonomy in its definition of consensus;
3. The value the Board attributes to receiving consensus advice;

.... the GAC agreed to further work on the issue of Stress Test 18...

These 3 options considered by the GAC are as different as chalk and cheese. What might an objective analysis of them be?  If, as Greg says, the issue is settled, why didn't the GAC simply accept the stress test?

I have no fight in this either, so I'm very much looking to hear a more informed take on the Communique.

Best,
Arun

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

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
Arun,

This is not my fight, but I don't understand your position.  Your reliance on the 3 March 2015 email is incorrect on its face -- it does not say that Denmark opposed Stress Test 18.

In any event you have the email intervention from Finn Petersen (signed "GAC - Dk") asking you tor correct it.  I don't think you need any further requests from Denmark to correct your article.  It would be the responsible thing to do.

If this remains uncorrected, in combination with the passage that Olga Cavalli quoted, it gives the appearance that your article is a stick stirring the ashes, hoping to rekindle a fire that has gone out, rather than a serious piece of reporting or analysis.  I hope that you did not intend to be a pyromaniac -- it would be a waste of your time and skills, and counterproductive in the larger scheme of things.

Greg

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Arun Mohan Sukumar <arun.sukumar at orfonline.org<mailto:arun.sukumar at orfonline.org>> wrote:
Thanks Greg - I would need to link to an e-mail intervention from DK or GAC meeting transcripts (when Dublin ones are out) to make this correction. Saying this post the article's publication is not quite the same.

Best,

--
Head, Cyber Initiative
Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi
http://amsukumar.tumblr.com<http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/>
+91-9871943272<tel:%2B91-9871943272>

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
Arun,

I just read the email you referred to.  It does not support the proposition that Stress Test 18 is unacceptable to Denmark, or even that Denmark has a position on Stress Test 18.  It is a fairly nuanced and non-dispositive email, contributing to the overall discourse at the time it was written.  Furthermore, it was written 3 March 2015, which in "CCWG time" is several millennia ago -- a further reason not to rely on it as a statement of "position" in late October.

I suggest that you do not need to wait for further instructions from Denmark in order to correct your piece, especially since Denmark has already told you in no uncertain terms that "your statement concerning Denmark is wrong!!!!"

I look forward to reading the revised version of your article.

Best regards,

Greg Shatan

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Arun Mohan Sukumar <arun.sukumar at orfonline.org<mailto:arun.sukumar at orfonline.org>> wrote:
Hi Finn, this is what I went by: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/2015-March/000071.html

If the Danish position has changed, happy to correct.

Best,

--
Head, Cyber Initiative
Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi
http://amsukumar.tumblr.com<http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/>
+91-9871943272<tel:%2B91-9871943272>

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Finn Petersen <FinPet at erst.dk<mailto:FinPet at erst.dk>> wrote:
Dear Arun,

Thoughts - here is one!

You write "Several countries, notably Brazil, Spain, Denmark and Argentina, see the proposed modification as unacceptable."

Why did you include Denmark in the group of countries that oppose ST18  - your statement concerning Denmark is wrong!!!!

Please correct this.

Best,

Finn, GAC - Dk

Sendt fra min iPad

Den 27. okt. 2015 kl. 17.42 skrev "arun.sukumar at orfonline.org<mailto:arun.sukumar at orfonline.org>" <arun.sukumar at orfonline.org<mailto:arun.sukumar at orfonline.org>>:
CCWGers, plugging here a post I wrote on discussions around Stress Test 18.
http://blogs.cfr.org/cyber/2015/10/27/governments-v-icann-the-last-battle-before-the-iana-transition/

Thoughts welcome!

Best,
Arun
Sent from my iPad

Head, Cyber Initiative
Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi
http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/
Ph: +91-9871943272
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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/20151028/15699ded/attachment.html>