[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Proposed Responses to questions onDraft Bylaws
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
Mon Apr 11 16:28:55 UTC 2016
I agree, the carve out is complicated. To me that means we should remove the GAC as a voting member in the EC.
Seriously, Rafael – it is most unseemly to try and change the CCWG agreement through back door machinations. We all were aware of the frequency of GAC advice – that is precisely why some of us didn’t want the GAC to vote at all. But if we have agreed to that, then we should stand on the principle articulated – that any consensus advice from the GAC is subject to the carve out. Period. Full stop. End of story. Here is the text of the CCWG agreement: “If the GAC chooses to participate as a Decisional Participant in the Empowered Community, it may not participate as a decision-maker in the Empowered Community’s exercise of a Community Power to challenge the ICANN Board’s implementation of GAC consensus advice (referred to as the “GAC carve-out”).”
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Perez Galindo, Rafael
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 5:23 AM
To: Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz at erst.dk>; 'Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch' <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>; 'mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk' <mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk>
Cc: 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Proposed Responses to questions onDraft Bylaws
Dear all
Actually, the proposed development of the carve-out in the draft Bylaws is so over-complicated that it may yield errors in the text. I stand to be corrected, but there seems to be a missing part in Annex D, section 2.4 (b) (ii) (A), namely “Rejection Action” should be added before “GAC Consensus Statement”. Please penholders can you kindly check this?
We would need to strive to get a simpler text that reflects the final agreement in the CCWG, taking into account the premises outlined in the emails below, i.e., GAC advice is almost never a standalone seldom happening, but on the contrary is a frequent event, more and more rooted in community processes.
Best
Rafael
De: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] En nombre de Julia Katja Wolman
Enviado el: viernes, 08 de abril de 2016 14:54
Para: 'Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch'; 'mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk'
CC: 'CCWG Accountability'
Asunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Proposed Responses to questions onDraft Bylaws
Dear Jorge,
In line with your comments, we believe it is important that we have clarity on the issues related to the GAC “carve-out”. The Bylaws text as a whole should reflect the CCWG Proposal and it is important to ensure that there is no direct/indirect extension of the “carve-out” provision in the relevant section of the CCWG Supplemental Report.
A simple and clean Bylaws text as possible is important from our point of view and referring to the carve-out in different sections of the Bylaw text has certainly not made it less complicated.
Best regards,
Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus
Langelinie Allé 17
DK-2100 København Ø
Telephone: +45 3529 1000
Direct: +45 35291308
E-mail: <mailto:jukacz at erst.dk> jukacz at erst.dk
<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] På vegne af Mark Carvell
Sendt: 8. april 2016 13:04
Til: Kavouss Arasteh
Cc: <accountability-cross-community at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> >
Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Proposed Responses to questions on Draft Bylaws
Dear Jorge
I think this serves to underline that in the new era of transversal working with the GNSO in particular, the so-called "carve-out" from a community escalation decision in instances where the Board decision would be based solely on GAC advice, would be an extremely rare occurrence. Plus of course the GAC would be advising the community throughout such a decision stage: as has been made clear in the CCWG discussions several times, while not being able to exercise a vote due to the carve-out, governments would not be excluded from this process.
Kind regards
Mark
Mark Carvell
Global Internet Governance Policy
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk <mailto:mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk>
tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062
On 8 April 2016 at 08:54, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> > wrote:
Jorge+1
Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Apr 2016, at 08:52, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> > <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> > wrote:
Dear all
Just to reiterate what some of us said in the chat yesterday:
- GAC Advice is almost always linked to a community process, and the tendency (and wish) is to increase this
- GAC Advice is actually quite frequent (at least three times a year)
- There is no basis in the CCWG report for isolating GAC Advice from other inputs from the community, and it would be counter to the multistakeholder fashion we work and/or we are trying to work within ICANN
Hope this helps
Regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Schaefer, Brett
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 7. April 2016 16:31
An: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> >; accountability-cross-community at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Proposed Responses to questions on Draft Bylaws
Thanks Andrew, these are interesting comments.
I agree on 6 and raised similar concerns in the chat Tuesday.
On 25, I agree that the problem is lack of clarity. It needs to be clear when a decision is based on GAC consensus or not.
Also, there is the danger of wrapping a decision based GAC consensus advice into a larger group of unrelated matters. Intentionally or not, it could force the EC into the undesirable position of (1) not opposing a decision based on GAC consensus advice it does not like or (2) opposing it knowing that the unrelated matters that have broad support will also be blocked with it.
This is why I suggested echoing Article 25.3 to avoid this dilemma. Article 25.3 states:
* The Board shall not combine an amendment of these Bylaws that was the result of a policy development process of a Supporting Organization (a “PDP Amendment”) with any other amendment. The Board shall indicate in the applicable Board Notice whether such amendment is a PDP Amendment.
Here is the text that I suggested:
* The Board shall not combine a decision based on or consistent with consensus GAC advice with any other decision. The Board shall indicate in the applicable Board Notice whether such a decision is based on or is consistent with consensus GAC advice.
If people have helpful edits, go at it. But I think this would separate – in a helpful way – Board decisions based on GAC consensus advice. I don’t think it would be onerous. Consensus GAC decisions are not all that frequent and, under the amended bylaws, must be indicated as such when sent to the Board.
If the GAC advice is supported elsewhere in the community this requirement should not be problematic because broadly supported advice would not pass thresholds for EC escalation. But it would allow the EC to consider and, if desired, address decisions based on GAC consensus advice in a targeted manner.
As mentioned in the chat, this in no way is an extension of the GAC carve-out. It would just help clarify when it might apply.
Best,
Brett
_____
Brett Schaefer
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
202-608-6097
<http://heritage.org/> heritage.org
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 9:48 AM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Proposed Responses to questions on Draft Bylaws
Dear colleagues,
Many apologies for missing calls this week, but as I noted in
Marrakesh this week is the IETF meeting and I have approximately no
time.
Anyway, I have some remarks. I'm sorry these are lengthy.
Q1
On the Mission, q1, I think it is extremely unfortunate to agree to
remove the restriction of "in the root zone".
I reject unequivocally the argument, "It is not true that ICANN
coordinates assignment ONLY in the root zone, as such term is
currently understood. ICANN’s gTLD registry and registrar agreements
and policies deal substantially and primarily with issues relating to
assignment of names at the second (and in some cases lower) levels of
the DNS." ICANN's gTLD registry and registrar agreements an policies
deal susbtantially and primarily with how _those registries and
registrars_ coordinate assignment in zones outside the root zone.
That is, ICANN's agreements are a meta-requirement on how other people
do co-ordination in the DNS, and do not actualy perform the
co-ordination
I know that this seems like a fine distinction. But it's important to
keep it in mind because the language that have been in the bylaws
historically, and that the CCWG has agreed to restore, is the very
basis on which various people around the Internet mistake ICANN for
the Internet Police. By removing the restriction to the root zone, we
are once again freeing ICANN to assert control down the DNS -- a
control that is very much inconsistent with the distributed authority
design of the DNS.
Q3
It might be worth observing also that, since the requester is the
person who asked for the transcripts and recordings, presumably the
requester could be asked about certain redactions due to the issues
outlined.
Q6
The proposal for the community just to endorse whatever the board
decides here strikes me as potentially risky. Supposed the community
replaces a recalled board member with a new one that is less
accommodating of a prevailing majority of the Board. The Board would
be able to remove that new director with a 75% majority. If the EC
does not have the ability to reject the Board's decision to remove,
then there could be a procedural deadlock that could only be
ameliorated by a complete replacement of the Board. That seems
undesirable.
Q17
I believe the requested addition is overspecification. It will simply
yield disputes about whether a given recommendation is limited in the
relevant way.
Q25
The document says
Initially, “solely” was added to tie the Petition Notice to the
GAC Consensus Board Resolution. For example, the ICANN Budget is
an amalgamation of many different inputs. If a particular
expenditure is tangentially related to GAC advice, then the GAC
should not be removed from voting on that petition.
I don't understand this argument. There are two possibilities: either
the expenditure is solely related to GAC advice (in which case,
whether it's "tangential" is irrelevant) or it is not. If it is not,
then the GAC exclusion is not entailed. If it is solely related to
GAC advice, then I don't get the claim above that the GAC should not
be excluded -- that's the whole point of the "carve out".
I hope these remarks are useful. Please see also the remarks that I sent in collaboration with my colleagues on the IAB.
Best regards,
A
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 06:30:14PM -0400, Bernard Turcotte wrote:
> All,
>
> Co-chairs and rapporteurs have reviewed and proposed answers to all
> questions some based on the results of the Tuesday April 5th meeting of the
> CCWG-Accountability.
>
> These are attached in preparation for the Thursday April 7th meeting of the
> CCWG-Accountability on this topic.
>
> The CCWG-Accountability Co-chairs Mathieu, Thomas and Leon
> _______________________________________________
> 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
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
_______________________________________________
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 <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/20160411/5a4ccacd/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list