[CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sun Jan 31 21:45:51 UTC 2016
Dear Grec, Dear Milton
Dear All,
Your analysis is an exageration of the situation.
I do not share your views that GAC is editor of GNSO.This type of analysis
is provocative and helpless.
What I said and repeating now is ,any such discussion is outside the
mandate and terms of refernce of CCWG.
Regards
Kavouss
2016-01-31 22:26 GMT+01:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
> Hi,
>
> One thing to note on this is that the Board has lately been coming back
> to the GNSO while doing its advice considerations. While the process
> long allowed for it, until recently the Board did not consult with the
> GNSO while going through its negotiations with the GAC, or anyone else
> for that matter. Now it does. The GNSO has even initiated new
> recommendation and advice procedures for dealing with such requests for
> clarification and possibly change from the Board.
>
> So while very true in the past, it should no longer be the case that the
> GNSO recommendations are subordinated to the GAC advice. As currently
> practiced, the GNSO will have a voice in those discussions. Add to that
> the beginnings of the GAC and GAC members' increasing participation in
> the PDP working groups and we should have an improved situation that
> removes the feeling of the GNSO being subordinate to the GAC.
>
> avri
>
> On 31-Jan-16 15:52, Greg Shatan wrote:
> > I think a reason the GNSO is (or appears to be) subordinate to the GAC
> > is that the GAC comes to the Board with its advice on GNSO
> > recommendations after the GNSO has gone through months (or more
> > likely, years) of work on its recommendations. The GAC then advises
> > the Board on how the GNSO recommendations should be modified. If the
> > Board doesn't agree, it then communes with the GAC to work things out,
> > a discussion that the GNSO is rarely invited to.
> >
> > In a sense, the GAC gets to be the "editor" of the GNSO, but not vice
> > versa. If GAC advice becomes harder to reject, the corollary is that
> > it becomes easier for the GAC to edit (or even "overrule") the GNSO.
> >
> > The improvements in cooperation between the GAC and the GNSO, and the
> > increase in GAC member participation in both CCWGs and gTLD policy
> > recommendation processes, are likely to result in less advice by the
> > GAC that modifies GNSO or cross-community policy recommendations.
> >
> > Of course, there is always the danger of the "second bite"; if the GAC
> > is not aligned with the consensus position in a policy recommendation
> > outcome, it can turn its viewpoint into "GAC advice" and achieve its
> > result that way. The more GAC participates in the process of
> > developing recommendations, including the building of consensus, the
> > more glaring second bite attempts will be. The GAC is alone in this
> > power. No other SO/AC has quite this ability. An SO (or part
> > thereof) and ALAC would need to resort to RfR/IRP or Empowered
> > Community mechanisms to get a second bite. Arguably, SSAC and RSSAC
> > would have this ability, but it is constrained by each AC's narrow
> > technical mission.
> >
> > I think this is all part of the undercurrent of these discussions.
> > Terms like "subordinate" are probably too crude and pejorative to be
> > of much use in discussing these issues. But the issues exist.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh
> > <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Milton
> > Pls kindly do not judge other of not understanding the issue.
> > I fulléy understand the case.
> > Malcolm wants to modify the current structure and functions of
> > ICANN whether in your views GNSO is or is not sub ordinate of GAC
> > ( WHICH i DO NOT BELIEVE SO ) .
> > What I said was the proposal of Malcolm ,while quite positive was
> > irelevant to the work we are doing ( accountability ) as it dioes
> > propose restructuring with which I categorically object since it
> > is outside of our mandate.
> > Pls respect others
> > Tks
> > BEST REGARDS MY DEAR PROFESSOR
> >
> >
> > 2016-01-30 23:56 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> > <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>:
> >
> > Dear Paul
> >
> > I feel that the consensus requirement was accepted in Dublin
> > as another element of the GAC position agreed then (together
> > with the 2/3 and other elements).
> >
> > And as you know we actively participate in discussions and
> > contribute to common ground proposals as much as wecan.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Jorge
> >
> > Von meinem iPhone gesendet
> >
> > > Am 30.01.2016 um 23:15 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig
> > <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> > <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>:
> > >
> > > Sure Jorge
> > >
> > > I'll happily agree with you that everyone who spoke to the
> > issue of the
> > > 2/3rd vote that was a government (as opposed to the rest of
> > the community)
> > > supported it.
> > >
> > > In return, ought you not to acknowledge that the entire
> > opposition to the
> > > full consensus/ST18 proposal is exactly 5 countries? Nobody
> > outside the GAC
> > > affirmatively supports less than full consensus and many
> > (most notably the
> > > gNSO) actively opposes it. Ought you not to acknowledge
> > that the tiny
> > > minority of 5 dissenters is who is blocking consensus on
> > that aspect of the
> > > issue?
> > >
> > > And, since we are asking questions -- why didn't the
> > government of
> > > Switzerland submit comments?
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > Paul Rosenzweig
> > > paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> > <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
> > > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
> > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
> > > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>
> > > Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> > > Link to my PGP Key
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> > <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> > [mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> > <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>]
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 4:40 PM
> > > To: paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> > <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
> > > Cc: egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>;
> > accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11
> > >
> > > Dear Paul
> > >
> > > As I said I cannot and would not dare to speak for the GAC.
> > >
> > > But in any group where expressing one's opinion is not
> > compulsory, normally
> > > a majority does remain silent and those with a strong
> > sentiment speak out,
> > > factually "representing" in some way the main currents of
> > thought in such a
> > > group.
> > >
> > > I guess this happens all across the board and in all
> > constituencies, as it
> > > happens in our CCWG, where some of us (to varying degrees)
> > cope a lot of the
> > > conversations while the majority of the +150 (?) members and
> > participants
> > > are normally silent.
> > >
> > > So, I guess that based on this "voluntary" principle the
> > data you mention on
> > > the 2/3 element is significant, at least in showing that
> > there seems not to
> > > be any government considering that threshold as something
> > they should object
> > > (quite to the contrary it seems). And of the governments
> > which participated
> > > there is quite an interesting variety in regional terms.
> > >
> > > best regards
> > >
> > > Jorge
> > >
> > > Von meinem iPhone gesendet
> > >
> > >>> Am 30.01.2016 um 22:14 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig
> > >> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> > <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>:
> > >>
> > >> Jorge
> > >>
> > >> I took you up on the implicit challenge and have just spent
> > an hour
> > > happily
> > >> reading all of the government comments on CCWG-A Third
> > Draft. I may
> > > have
> > >> missed a comment, but I don't think so.
> > >>
> > >> I can happily report the following to the community:
> > >>
> > >> 15 governments commented on the Third Draft report. Of
> > those 14
> > >> addressed Rec 11 and 7 also addressed Rec 1. One
> > government (Italy)
> > >> addressed only Rec 2.
> > >>
> > >> Of the 7 who addressed Rec 1: 4 governments supported GAC
> > voting in
> > >> the EC (Brazil, Argentina, Japan, and NZ) though two (Japan
> > and NZ)
> > >> expressed caution about this. Two governments said GAC
> > should be
> > >> advisory only
> > >> (Ireland/Denmark) and one (UK) said that the decision
> > should be up to
> > >> the GAC.
> > >>
> > >> Of the 14 who addressed Rec 11:
> > >> -- All who spoke to the issue supported the 2/3rd vote
> > >> rejection rule. Some were silent
> > >> -- Eight governments supported the current full
> > consensus rule
> > >> (Australia, NZ, UK, Japan, Sweden, Ireland, Canada, and
> > Denmark); five
> > >> opposed it (Brazil, France, Argentina, Portugal, India);
> > one (Norway)
> > >> noted lack of GAC consensus.
> > >>
> > >> So my assessment is that a very small sample of 6
> > governments splits
> > >> 2-1 in favor of a GAC voting role in the EC and a somewhat
> > larger
> > >> sample of 13 governments splits 8-5 in favor of ST18 and
> > full consensus.
> > >>
> > >> To be honest, I think that doesn't tell us much. There are
> 153
> > >> governments in the GAC. A sample of 10% probably says
> > nothing about
> > >> sentiment in that body. Nonetheless the data speak for
> > themselves at
> > > least as far as they go.
> > >>
> > >> Paul
> > >>
> > >> Paul Rosenzweig
> > >> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> > <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
> > >> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
> > >> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
> > >> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>
> > >> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> > >> Link to my PGP Key
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> > <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> > [mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> > <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>]
> > >> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 3:04 PM
> > >> To: egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>
> > >> Cc: paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> > <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>;
> > >> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> > >> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11
> > >>
> > >> Hi Ed
> > >>
> > >> I don't know the numbers by heart, but I'll guess they are
> > on the
> > >> public comment sheet produced by staff (actually I just saw
> > in their
> > >> ppt that out of 90 comments 17% come from govts).
> > >>
> > >> But let's not go down that road: if we count who
> > participates and
> > >> extend it to other constituencies we will also see the
> > "same faces" all
> > > over again:
> > >> that is a consequence of the principle of voluntary
> > participation.
> > >>
> > >> In the GAC this is "compensated" with our voluntary high
> > consensus
> > >> threshold which requires to include any interested
> > delegation into a
> > > consensus.
> > >>
> > >> regards
> > >> Jorge
> > >>
> > >> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
> > >>
> > >>> Am 30.01.2016 um 20:54 schrieb Edward Morris
> > <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi Jorge,
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks for this.
> > >>>
> > >>> I believe the GAC has around 140 members, give or take a
> > few. As
> > >>> you've
> > >> gone through all the public comments filed by governments
> > would be so
> > >> kind as to us know how many governments actually filed
> > public comments
> > >> and what percentage of GAC membership that represents?
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>>
> > >>> Ed Morris
> > >>>
> > >>> Sent from my iPhone
> > >>>
> > >>>> On 30 Jan 2016, at 19:46, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> > <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
> > >> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> > <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Dear Paul
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I cannot speak for the GAC of course, but the last
> > consensus input
> > >>>> on
> > >> ST18 we had was the Dublin Communique.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The subsequent Rec 11 did not satisfy some governments,
> > as they
> > >>>> basically
> > >> thought that it did not comply with the "autonomy in defining
> > >> consensus"-element agreed in Dublin.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This may be checked with the comments filed in the third
> > public
> > >>>> comment
> > >> period on the third draft report by governments.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I think I have gone through all public comments filed by
> > governments
> > >>>> and
> > >> I'm not aware of any position rejecting or objecting to Rec
> > 11 because
> > >> it would consider that it went "too far" i.e. because they
> > would
> > >> actively disagree with the 2/3.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Other colleagues may of course correct and/or complement
> > me if I
> > >>>> have
> > >> missed something.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> regards
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Jorge
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Am 30.01.2016 um 20:19 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig
> > >> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> > <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 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
> > <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
> > >>>>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
> > >>>>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
> > >>>>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>
> > >>>>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> > >>>>> Link to my PGP Key
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>> From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton at gatech.edu
> > <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>]
> > >>>>> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 1:50 PM
> > >>>>> To: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net
> > <mailto:malcolm at linx.net>>; Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> > <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>;
> > >>>>> kdrazek at verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>
> > >>>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> > <mailto: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>
> > >>>>>>
> > [mailto: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
> > <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>; kdrazek at verisign.com
> > <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>
> > >>>>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> > <mailto: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
> > <mailto: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
> > <mailto: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
> > <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523> 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 <mailto:Community at icann.org>
> > >>>>>>
> >
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communi
> > >>>>>> t
> > >>>>>> y
> > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>> 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-communit
> > >>>>> y
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160131/3a5eb0cf/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list