[CCWG-ACCT] RES: Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability

Phil Corwin psc at vlaw-dc.com
Tue Jan 26 19:05:36 UTC 2016


With all respect, this text merely states that the GAC considered many factors in formulating its Dublin Communique, and then “agreed to further work on the issue of Stress Test 18, and to submit any further input to the CCWG taking into account the timelines of the CCWG”. It conveys no position on ST 18.

The Dublin meeting concluded on October 22nd. It is now three months – a quarter of a year – later, and the GAC, taking into account the timeline of the CCWG, has failed to reach a consensus position on the Recommendation that is most relevant to its role in a post-transition ICANN; that is, the threshold for Board consideration/rejection of GAC advice. It has not provided further input in a timely matter.

So yes, the GAC did not reject recommendation 11, but neither did it endorse it – nor did it take the intermediate route of raising informal concerns short of rejection or acceptance and suggesting modifications, as other SOs and ACs have done on various matters. Its position is essentially one of silence, and may be viewed by some as signaling official indifference. In any event, the statements of GAC representatives participating in this dialogue must of course be treated respectfully, but only as the positions of the governments they represent as there is now officially no GAC consensus position on recommendation 11.

In any event, the CCWG must press on and formulate a Supplemental and hopefully final proposal based on the endorsements, rejections, and suggestions it has received.

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 1:11 PM
To: 'Kavouss Arasteh'; Thomas Rickert
Cc: ACCT-Staff; Accountability Cross Community
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability


Dear CCWG colleagues,



Notwithstanding the lack of consensus on recommendation 11 of the 3rd draft report, I think it is beneficial to our discussion to remind ourselves of GAC's consensus text for Stress Test 18, which is part of the ICANN 54 GAC's Communiqué (Dublin):



"The discussions on Stress Test 18 have helped the GAC to have a better understanding of the different views on the issue. In assessing the different rationales presented so far related to Stress Test 18, the GAC considered:



• The need that each and every Advisory Committee ensures that the advice provided is clear and reflects the consensus view of the Committee;



• The need that each and every Advisory Committee should preserve its own autonomy in its definition of consensus;



• The value the Board attributes to receiving consensus advice;



• The recommendation of the BGRI WG, as reiterated by the ATRT2, to set the threshold for the ICANN Board to reject GAC advice to a 2/3 majority voting, consistent with the threshold established for rejection of ccNSO and GNSO PDP recommendations.

In view of the above, having considered concerns expressed by various parties, the GAC agreed to further work on the issue of Stress Test 18, and to submit any further       input to the CCWG taking into account the timelines of the CCWG. GAC Members will continue to work within the CCWG to finalise the proposal for enhancing ICANN accountability."





Kind regards,



Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva

Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI)

Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil

T: + 55 61 2030-6609



Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva

Division of Information Society (DI)

Ministry of External Relations - Brazil

T: + 55 61 2030-6609







-----Mensagem original-----
De: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] Em nome de Kavouss Arasteh
Enviada em: terça-feira, 26 de janeiro de 2016 15:36
Para: Thomas Rickert
Cc: ACCT-Staff; Accountability Cross Community
Assunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability



Yes

Lack ok consensus on such an issue so delicate like Stress Test 18 and Rec. 11 in GAC is understandable thus we could make our best to finalise the Rec.

Regards

Kavouss



Sent from my iPhone



On 26 Jan 2016, at 18:12, Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>> wrote:







                All,

                Please note the GAC did not reject any of our recommendations, including recommendation 11. That is great news.



                Kind regards,

                Thomas





                ---

                rickert.net





                Am 26.01.2016 um 16:15 schrieb Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>:







                               When Leon’s email arrived last night the first thing I did after opening the attachment was scroll to Recommendation 11, because that is the one that most directly speaks to the GAC’s post-transition influence upon ICANN policy decisions, and also the one that has engendered the most controversy (finding almost no support, e.g., among members of the GNSO).







                               So I was of course astounded to see “There is no consensus within the GAC to adopt a formal position on this Recommendation”. That’s it, without even any further exposition on the divergent views within the GAC to provide a minimum of guidance.







                               This is of course a reminder of how difficult it is for the GAC to render advice under the current operating procedure of consensus (and why in the future the GAC might be tempted to lower or redefine that standard to bolster its input). It is also a sharp reminder that governmental representatives engaging in the CCWG’s process are expressing only the view of their nation and not any overall GAC position.







                               As for how the CCWG should proceed given that the GAC has no position on rec. 11, well given that it has missed its chance to register either support, objection, or recommendations for modification I think CCWG has no choice but to proceed based upon input from other Chartering Organizations, because waiting on the GAC is not feasible under the current timeline however it is measured.







                               Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal



                               Virtualaw LLC



                               1155 F Street, NW



                               Suite 1050



                               Washington, DC 20004



                               202-559-8597/Direct



                               202-559-8750/Fax



                               202-255-6172/cell







                               Twitter: @VlawDC







                               "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey







                               From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig

                               Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 9:33 AM

                               To: 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'; 'Accountability Cross Community'

                               Cc: 'ACCT-Staff'

                               Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability







                               I know that the Annex 11 is on for discussion today.  Is it just me or does it seem to others near impossible to reach a conclusion on Annex 11 without the GAC’s input?  Even if, in the end, we wind up not accepting their position I would have thought it essential to do so knowing what that position is.







                               Or is it the case that we are going to drive ahead and just proceed without the GAC because they can’t meet our timeline of consideration?







                               Paul







                               Paul Rosenzweig



                               paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto: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>



                               <image001.png> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016>







                               From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía [mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx]

                               Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 8:15 PM

                               To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>

                               Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>

                               Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability







                               Dear all,







                               I am forwarding the GAC’s views on the draft recommendations of our third draft proposal.











                               Best regards,











                               León







                                               Inicio del mensaje reenviado:







                                               De: <Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>>



                                               Asunto: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability



                                               Fecha: 25 de enero de 2016, 6:50:14 p.m. GMT-6



                                               Para: <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>, <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>, <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>



                                               Cc: <gac at icann.org<mailto:gac at icann.org>>







                                               Dear Co-Chairs







                                               Please find attached the GAC’s views on the draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG Accountability.







                                               Best regards







                                               Thomas















                                               Thomas Schneider



                                               Chair



                                               ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)







________________________________



                               No virus found in this message.

                               Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>

                               Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16

                               Internal Virus Database is out of date.



                               _______________________________________________

                               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





________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160126/9156099c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list