[CCWG-ACCT] On Stress Test 18
Nigel Roberts
nigel at channelisles.net
Thu Oct 29 09:02:18 UTC 2015
On 10/29/2015 08:10 AM, Megan.Richards at ec.europa.eu wrote:
> Sorry but don't think that this phrase will find much "consensus"
within GAC:
I don't think it will find much traction among ccTLD managers either.
Although ccNSO members are only bound by ICANN policy so long as it has
been developed within the ccNSO (and then only whilst they remain a
member), ccTLD managers are rightly protective of their local status and
guard the principle of subsidiarity with vigour.
This means, that even where a difference of opinion arises in the
community over a matter which, at least on its face, apparently does not
involve ccTLDs very much (such as Stress Test 18, on which I would
suggest, most of us are studiedly neutral), whenever we read sentences line
"so long as the Board gets to determine . . . . "
hackles instinctively rise.
A lot of more recent people in the ICANN community simply have no idea
of the immense damage to trust that was done by ICANN and its then
Boards in the period from approx 1999 to 2003. One commentator describes
certain actions at the time (to wit, refusing IANA services as a method
of compulsion) as 'quite literally extortion'.
It would therefore, I suggest, be recommended to avoid suggesting that
any one is prepared to accept that '. . . the Board gets to determine'.
And this is why enforceable accountability of ICANN is a sine qua non
and prerequisite of transition.
Nigel Roberts
(PS: I very much suspect that the public policy view taken by the
various relevant public authorities on that matter just MAY probably be
quite similar)
On 10/29/2015 08:10 AM, Megan.Richards at ec.europa.eu wrote:
> Sorry but don't think that this phrase will find much "consensus" within
> GAC: "/so long as the Board gets to determine what it deems consensus
> advice/that activates the consultation agreement". So far as I recall it
> is not the Board that determines what is consensus in any other SO or AC
> – neither should it for GAC. Also GAC gives advice on public policy
> issues not on all and every aspect of ICANN activity. Hope that this
> helps to clarify
>
> *Megan RICHARDS
> *Principal Adviser**
>
> *
> ****
> *cid:image001.gif at 01CF9F7C.EC1CDF70*
> **European Commission
> *Communications Networks, Content and Technology Directorate-General
>
> Office BU 25 6/24, rue de la Loi 200
>
> B-1049 Brussels/Belgium
>
> +32-2-296-24-43(direct line)
>
> megan.richards at ec.europa.eu <mailto:megan.richards at ec.europa.eu>
>
> *//*
>
> */This message is intended for the use of the addressee only and may
> contain information that is privileged and confidential./*
>
> */If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any
> dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited./*
>
> */If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
> immediately by return of this e-mail./*
>
> */_This communication does not constitute a formal commitment on behalf
> of the Commission neither can it be considered to state an official
> position of the European Commission._/*
>
> **
>
> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Paul Rosenzweig
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2015 7:36 PM
> *To:* 'Steve DelBianco'
> *Cc:* 'Accountability Cross Community'
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] On Stress Test 18
>
> Steve
>
> I have no interest in telling GAC how to operate. They can use a Oujia
> board for all I care (ok .. that’s a bit extreme). My concern is with
> the action forcing mechanism that they have to compel Board
> consideration. That is why, to be clear, I *completely support* the
> idea of amending the bylaws to require the mutual agreement consultation
> process *only* when the GAC’s advice is by consensus --- so long as the
> Board gets to determine what it deems consensus advice that activates
> the consultation agreement. If you read my note as anything other than
> support for the idea, I apologize for my rhetorical flourish.
>
> 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:*Steve DelBianco [mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2015 1:23 PM
> *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.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
>
> Paul — you suggest CCWG should somehow prevent GAC from changing its
> ownoperating 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list