[CCWG-ACCT] On Stress Test 18

Wed Oct 28 23:58:25 UTC 2015

to require ICANN to seek a mutually acceptable solution only when the GAC
advice was supported by consensus of governments.

I would be inclined to be in agreement with the above.

RD
On Oct 28, 2015 1:23 PM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco at netchoice.org> wrote:

> 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> 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
> <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
> <arun.sukumar at orfonline.org>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2015 2:12 PM
> *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community <
> 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
>
> +91-9871943272
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Greg Shatan <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> 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
>
> +91-9871943272
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Greg Shatan <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> 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
>
> +91-9871943272
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Finn Petersen <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" <
> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> 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
> 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/a82817b4/attachment.html>