[CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues

[Paul Rosenzweig]

Dear Andrew

I agree with you completely.  I'm not sure, though, why  you bother (except
to create a record, I guess).  There have been, by my count, more than a
dozen substantive emails (Mike C; Becky; Keith; Ed M; you) that outline the
very real differences between the NSO processes (and particularly the PDP
process) and the way in which GAC advice is developed (to the extent we know
it, since the GAC is not very transparent).  

There have, likewise, been a similar number of emails pointing out that the
GAC's privileged position with the Board in compelled negotiation is unique
to the GAC and that a concomitant check on the GAC's ability to forestall
the remainder of the community is appropriate and necessary.  Yet nobody
from the GAC has ever suggested that perhaps the way to solve their problem
with the "carve out" is to give up their ability to compel the Board to
negotiate.

We have, in fact, repeated these points ad infinitum.  It isn't that the
minority of GAC members who are vocally opposing this on the list don't
=really= understand or appreciate these distinctions.  Of course they do.
They are all very intelligent and thoughtful diplomats who represent their
country's interests ably.  It is simply that they (or more accurately, their
political masters) disagree with the result, want more governmental power,
and are attempting to avoid it by obfuscation and by erecting artificial,
non-existent procedural hurdles.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig 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



-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 12:58 PM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11
issues

Dear Jorge,

On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 05:03:15PM +0000, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch wrote:
> 
> such a obligation to chose (only for the GAC) was never in any CCWG draft
report.

Of course this has not appeard in any previous draft report.  It is a clever
new compromise that's being proposed to address previous apparently
irreconcilable goals.  If we restrict ourselves strictly only to what has
appeared in any of the previous drafts, we will be unable to find the
compromise necessary to deliver the CCWG-Accountability's task.  That would,
I think, be fatal to the IANA transition.  It also, I think, would in the
long run desperately weaken ICANN.  I don't see how any of that is a winning
strategy, so I think finding a way to compromise is needed.

> It is inconsistent with the multistakeholder model and the principle 
> of equal footing.

I don't see how.  The GAC has always behaved differently than other
stakeholder constituencies in ICANN, and the proposal formalises that role.
It allows GAC to have a choice: behave like everyone else, and then
participate in the equal footing you call out; or else behave in a way
different to other constituency groups, and then be treated differently too.

The analogy you have drawn with the *NSO is not apt, for two reasons.
First, the NSOs (and particularly the GNSO) members have direct operational
stake in the outcome of PDPs.  Second, PDPs have a great deal of process
associated with them before they render decisions, and that process includes
a lot of public consultation.  The same is not true of GAC advice.  A more
apt analogy to the GAC would be other ACs, and it seems to me that those ACs
already labour under the same rules as the GAC would in case it decided not
to take the "formal GAC advice" path.  That really does follow the principle
of equal footing.

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community