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

Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva pedro.ivo at itamaraty.gov.br
Tue Jan 26 19:09:56 UTC 2016


Dear Finn,

Thanks for expressing your view. However, as you are aware, it is not shared by some other GAC members, who consider that recommendation 11 departs from the GAC consensus language in the Dublin Communiqué.   

As for the GAC's lack of consensus on recommendation 11, I guess it is better described as being the result of the fact that some GAC members rejected it, others supported it and others remained silent about it. 

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: Finn Petersen [mailto:FinPet at erst.dk] 
Enviada em: terça-feira, 26 de janeiro de 2016 16:48
Para: Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
Cc: Kavouss Arasteh; Thomas Rickert; ACCT-Staff; Accountability Cross Community
Assunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Fwd: GAC views on draft recommendations of the third draft proposal of the CCWG-accountability

Thank you for reminding us of the GAC's consensus text on ST18 from Dublin. The present text in rec. 11 is in our view in line with the GAC's consensus text, and as Thomas has stated the GAC  did not reject  recommendation 11 or any of the recommendations.

Best,

Finn

Sendt fra min iPad

Den 26. jan. 2016 kl. 19.15 skrev Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva <pedro.ivo at itamaraty.gov.br>:



	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] 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 <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 <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 <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 <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,

	 

	                               

	 

	                               

	 

	                               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 <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 <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