[CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11
Edward Morris
egmorris1 at toast.net
Sat Jan 30 19:40:58 UTC 2016
+1.
This is a very important consideration in my calculations as well. Some of the GAC members I speak with have expressed opinions closer to, for example, the GNSO position on 11 and the NCSG position on 1 than that expressed by the more vocal GAC members on the CCWG. I don't mean to be critical of anyone - the fact I don't exactly know where the GAC actually stands is not only problematic here but also in terms of being able to see my way to support their inclusion as a participant in the CM. To have a transparent and accountable Board subject to the advice, unless overridden by a 2/3 vote, of an opaque GAC makes little sense for the type of governance scheme we seem to want: one that is open, responsive and accountable to the global internet community.
I should not have to guess to understand the processes and reasonings behind the decisions made and / or proposed by any unit that is part of our community decision making mechanism. Sadly today I am and will continue to be if the recommendations currently on offer are approved as is.
Best,
Ed Morris
Sent from my iPhone
> On 30 Jan 2016, at 19:22, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> May I ask a question -- is the GAC willing to disclose the current split of
> opinion within the GAC regarding Rec 11?
>
> The last we heard was that the GAC had not reached consensus on the
> question. One infers (I think infer is actually too soft a word but I use
> it to be certain I am not overstating the case) that some members of the GAC
> support Rec 11 as written and some do not. One also suspects (though here I
> am less certain) that some of the GAC members oppose Rec 11 because it does
> not go far enough (they want Rec 11 plus more (e.g. removal of the consensus
> language)) while others do not support Rec 11 because it goes too far (they
> would be content with a majority requirement and enshrining the status quo
> consensus rule in the bylaws).
>
> One of the issues we have with the GAC is that unlike the other SO/ACs it is
> uniquely non-transparent. That means that the voices in our discussion that
> are the most frequent can be thought to represent the GAC majority. Perhaps
> they are. Yet every time some of the less frequent voices from GAC speak in
> this forum they seem much less strident and committed than do the more
> frequent participants in our discussion.
>
> I fear that the result of this is that we are misperceiving the GAC's true
> intentions, or more accurately, misperceiving the actual split of opinion
> within the GAC. To be honest, if, in fact, it were the case that every
> country in the world save my own were supporting Rec 11, I would be more
> inclined to relinquish my objection. But my strong suspicion is that this
> is not the case.
>
> Put another way, some have recently said we are "disrespecting" the GAC or
> ignoring its wishes. But, as of now its wishes are radically unclear -- all
> it says is "we have not reached consensus." In the interests of clarifying
> the nature of that lack of consensus, would the GAC be willing to disclose
> its assessment of the relative support for Rec 11 and the relative support
> for objections thereto?
>
> 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: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton at gatech.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 1:50 PM
> To: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net>; Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch;
> kdrazek at verisign.com
> Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11
>
> I'm sorry, Malcolm, but this is a bit too "creative."
>
> You are proposing to restructure the entire ICANN policy process and to
> alter in a fairly fundamental way the relationship between GNSO and the GAC.
> There is a lot of merit in your idea as a general procedural reform, but the
> point of this exercise is to create accountability mechanisms that
> substitute for the oversight of the USG, not to alter the policy development
> process or to redesign all of ICANN.
>
> I think Ed Morris's message was a more positive contribution that points the
> way toward a solution.
> The problem is not the 2/3 threshold in isolation, the problem is that
> certain aspects of the CCWG 3rd draft, when looked at in combination, are
> changing the role of the GAC in ways greatly expand its power over the
> policy process, because they retain and strengthen the privileges of its old
> role while also changing its role by making it a part of the community
> mechanism.
>
> I agree with Ed: if GAC is not part of the community mechanism, and/or is
> not exempted from the same reviews as other ACs and SOs, then the 2/3
> threshold becomes much less of an issue.
>
> I agree with Becky's more modest proposal: if GAC is removed from the
> community mechanism appeals that pertain to whether the board follows GAC
> advice, then there is less worry about raising the threshold for board
> rejection of GAC advice.
>
> I think we need to start from those propositions, not start redesigning the
> policy process.
>
> --MM
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>> Malcolm Hutty
>> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 4:50 AM
>> To: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch; kdrazek at verisign.com
>> Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11
>>
>>> On 29/01/2016 21:24, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch wrote:
>>> it is a bit akward you would need to concede that you imply that
>>> without the 2/3 the GNSO would be able to support Rec 11.
>>>
>>> It gives an impression as if Rec 11 (without 2/3) would contain
>>> anything "that would need to be accepted", when as we all know Rec
>>> 11 (without 2/3) corresponds to 100% of the GNSO starting position.
>>>
>>> So there would be any concession. No aspect "in need to be accepted".
>>>
>>> Just a 100% win-situation for the GNSO.
>>
>>
>>> On 29/01/2016 22:01, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch wrote:
>>> I feel that at this critical juncture we all have to keep the whole
>>> picture in our heads, be creative (as Becky for instance) and look
>>> for a solution which may be acceptable across the community as a whole.
>>
>> The 2/3 rule is evidently unacceptable to the GNSO.
>>
>> Without that rule, Rec.11 would (it seems) be acceptable to them.
>> Jorge says "But this is their starting position, it would mean a 100%
>> win-situation for the GNSO". I might observe that the logic of that
>> seems to be that GNSO ought to have come to CCWG with a more extreme
>> initial position, so that it could settle on what it really wanted.
>> Perhaps it will learn to adapt its negotiating tactics.
>>
>> However, I do agree with Jorge: we need to try to respect the need for
>> all parties to be seen to gain improvements from our changes. I would
>> therefore like us to take up his challenge to "be creative" in an
>> attempt to find a solution.
>>
>> Let us consider what the 2/3 rule attempts:
>>
>> - from a government point of view, it provides an assurance that GAC
>> advice will be given greater weight, affirming the importance of
> government input.
>> Such an assurance is necessary to them.
>>
>> - from a GNSO point of view, it ensures that the Board will
>> automatically follow GAC advice (except in very unusual circumstances)
>> transforming ICANN into a body which is led by government policy. Such
>> a transformation is unacceptable to them.
>>
>> With GNSO opposition, I believe we must accept that the 2/3 rule is
>> dead. But taking up Jorge's challenge, we must replace it not with
>> nothing, but with something creative that would offer in its place the
>> assurance to governments the 2/3 rule seeks to achieve, without
>> creating the transformation that the GNSO opposes.
>>
>> I think it would be useful if people come forward with ideas for
>> strengthening the input of governments without overbalancing the
>> decision-making process as the 2/3 rule does.
>>
>> I would therefore like to make the following suggestion of my own:
>>
>> * Remove the 2/3 rule; and
>> * Provide that when providing advice on GNSO policy, GAC advice is
>> given directly to the GNSO (during the PDP) instead of to the Board,
>> (after the community consensus policy is finalised and ready to be
> ratified).
>> Require that the GNSO consider any such GAC advice before adopting a
>> PDP policy. (This is conceptual: lawyers can wordsmith).
>>
>> The advantages of this proposal, as I see them, are as follows:
>>
>> - By accepting GAC advice into an earlier stage of the process, it
>> will be possible to incorporate it into the design of the policy,
>> rather than tacking it on as an adjunct. GAC advice will therefore be
>> more effective and the ultimate outcome more likely to reflect GAC
> expectations than at present.
>>
>> - By incorporating the fruits of GAC advice into the community
>> proposal, it will also benefit from the rule that the Board is
>> expected to accept GNSO community consensus policy proposals, and can
>> only reject them by
>> 2/3 supermajority.
>>
>> - By including the GAC in the policy-development process we strengthen
>> the GAC's role as a part of our community, reducing the "them and us"
>> tensions and helping to ensure that GAC concerns are given full
>> respect at every level of the organisation.
>>
>> Most importantly, this suggestions aims to strengthen the GAC's role
>> in a manner that also strengthens the multi-stakeholder policy
>> development process, rather than standing in tension with it. It can
>> therefore be seen not as a zero-sum compromise but a true win-win
> solution.
>>
>> I look forward to your thoughts,
>>
>> Malcolm.
>>
>> --
>> Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London
>> Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
>>
>> London Internet Exchange Ltd
>> Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ
>>
>> Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>> Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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
> 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