[CCWG-ACCT] GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability
robin at ipjustice.org
Tue Jan 26 19:07:06 UTC 2016
I agree with Phil. If GAC can’t even come to agreement that it wants and should have these powers, then we have no business giving them. Without approval from GAC on these powers, we can’t insist on changing it in this way. It isn’t appropriate to say that the lack of objection should be treated as acceptance. That is a logical flaw.
> On Jan 26, 2016, at 7:15 AM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
> 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
> 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 <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 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>
> <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 <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,
> 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 Schneider
> 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community