[CCWG-ACCT] Notice of polling of members on Recommendation 11 at the next meeting of the CCWG February 2nd 06:00UTC
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Sat Jan 30 21:52:21 UTC 2016
"...Accordingly, determination of consensus will be based on the level of
objection, not support..."
SO: While I expect that all members would be present. Just incase this does
not happen, I hope the text above is also imply that members who do not
object nor have an opinion on the topic does not have to be present.
On 30 Jan 2016 9:48 p.m., "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
> Our usual approach is not achieving consensus on a way forward with
> Recommendation 11. So, as discussed at our last meeting, we will be
> conducting a poll of Members on this question at our next meeting.
> We will only be conducting a poll on third draft Recommendation 11, with
> the current minor amendments, given it is the text presented in the third
> draft and no alternative so far has demonstrated an ability to bring the
> different perspectives any closer.
> Exceptionally and unfortunately we will only be polling Members of the
> CCWG as defined and permitted in our charter.
> According to our Charter, the co-chairs shall be responsible for
> designating each position as having one of the following designations:
> a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees;
> identified by an absence of objection
> b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most
> Accordingly, determination of consensus will be based on the level of
> objection, not support.
> In the absence of Full Consensus, the co chairs will allow for the
> submission of minority viewpoint(s)which will be included in the
> Suppplemental report.
> In the absence of Consensus, we will need to assess what process the group
> will follow to rebuild consensus, or whether the absence of Consensus
> should be reported to the Chartering Organizations.
> The polling question will be:
> *Do you object to including Recommendation 11 as written below in the
> CCWG-Accountability’s supplemental report to be submitted for Chartering
> Organisation approval?*
> Members unable to attend the meeting in-person may appoint an alternate.
> Alternates will be eligible if they are a current participant of the
> CCWG-Accountability. Alternates must be announced prior to the call to
> acct-staff at icann.org.
> * *
> Recommendation 11 is designed to address Stress Test 18, which identified
> that GAC may change its method of decision-making to something other than
> the method it now uses: general agreement in the absence of any formal
> objections. Today’s bylaws would still require the ICANN board to “try to
> find a mutually acceptable solution,” even for GAC advice that was opposed
> by a significant number of governments. To address this Stress Test,
> Recommendation 11 currently reads:
> 1 The CCWG-Accountability recommends that the following changes be
> made to the ICANN Bylaws Article XI, Section 2:
> *j. The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy
> matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and
> adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take
> an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee
> advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it
> decided not to follow that advice. Any Governmental Advisory Committee
> advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory Committee consensus,
> understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement
> in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of
> 2/3 of the Board, and the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN
> Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to
> find a mutually acceptable solution.*
> 2 Notes:
> The GAC has the autonomy to refine its operating procedures to specify how
> objections are raised and considered (for example, disallowing a single
> country to continue an objection on the same issue if no other countries
> will join in an objection). When transmitting consensus advice to the Board
> for which the GAC seeks to receive special consideration, the GAC has the
> obligation to confirm the lack of any formal objection.
> This recommendation is intended only to limit the conditions under which
> the ICANN board and GAC must “try to find a mutually acceptable solution”,
> as required in ICANN’s current bylaws. This recommendation shall not
> create any new obligations for ICANN board to consider, vote upon, or to
> implement GAC advice, relative to the bylaws in effect prior to the IANA
> Insert this requirement for all ACs: A rationale must accompany any formal
> advice provided by an Advisory Committee to the ICANN Board. The Board
> shall have the responsibility to determine whether the rationale provided
> is adequate to enable determination of whether following that advice would
> be consistent with ICANN bylaws.
> To address the concern of GAC advice inconsistent with bylaws, add this
> clarification for legal counsel to consider when drafting bylaws language:
> ICANN cannot take action - based on advice or otherwise – that is
> inconsistent with Bylaws. While the GAC is not restricted as to the advice
> it can offer to ICANN, it is clear that ICANN may not take action that is
> inconsistent with its Bylaws. Any aggrieved party, or the empowered
> community, will have standing to bring an IRP to challenge whether a board
> action or inaction is inconsistent with its bylaws, even if the board acted
> on GAC advice.
> The language proposed in recommendations for ICANN Bylaw revisions are
> conceptual in nature at this stage. The CCWG-Accountability’s external
> legal counsel and the ICANN legal team will draft final language for these
> revisions to the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws (Fundamental/Standard
> As a reminder, Recommendation 11 obtained the following results in the
> public comment period on the third draft of the CCWG-Accountability:
> · Support 35
> · Against 19
> · Neutral 2
> · N/A 26
> Chartering Organization responses to the Third draft are summarized as:
> · GNSO : “Little support; strong opposition” to Rec 11 as written
> in Third Draft Proposal. “Most SG/Cs do not support” raising threshold for
> Board vote to reject GAC advice. Serious concern over lack of specificity
> in relation of requirements for GAC advice (such as provision of rationale)
> and possibility that this recommendation, if adopted, could unduly change
> nature of Board-GAC relationship and/or position of GAC vis-à-vis other
> SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs believe any recommendation should retain current
> flexibility in Bylaws where Board is not required to undertake a formal
> vote in order to reject GAC advice.
> · ccNSO: no specific comment
> · ASO: In general, we find the current text acceptable.
> Additionally, we would like to make the following remarks: We would support
> a text that clarifies today’s practices and does not substantially change
> the GAC's role and how its advice is treated by the Board or substantially
> strengthen obligations for the Board to consider the GAC advice. We would
> not support a text that cannot be acceptable by the NTIA.
> · GAC: There is no consensus within the GAC so far to support or
> object to the text contained in Recommendation 11 of the 3rd Draft Proposal.
> · ALAC: supports the recommendation
> SSAC: no specific comment
> Leon Thomas & Mathieu
> CCWG Accountability Co-chairs
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community