<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css" id="owaParaStyle"></style>
</head>
<body fpstyle="1" ocsi="0">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">Dear Greg, Avri,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for your comments. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I believe some of the concerns below have been answered by Jorge, so I don't want to repeat arguments here.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would just like to comment on the Greg's statements that "<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">the proposed suggestion essentially turns the concerns of the rest of the community on its head</span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">"
and that "</span><span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Under this formulation, the GAC gets far more than it has under the current bylaw</span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">".</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br>
</span></div>
<div>The suggested language for the bylaws preserves the advisory nature of the GAC with regards to the ICANN Board. It actually restricts it by imposing the requirement of the advice having to be reached based on consensus - an imposition that Brazil and other
countries have expressed to be against but for the sake of compromise have decided not to object.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">With regards to raising to 2/3 majority the rejection threshold, this is by no means an attempt to turn the GAC into a "</span><span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">co-equal (if not more than
equal) policymaker with the GNSO (and ccNSO)</span><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">". It is rather a disposition targeted at recognizing the importance of public policy considerations within ICANN's decision-making system. </span></div>
<div><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">Regards,</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">Pedro</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF559335" style="direction: ltr;"><font face="Tahoma" size="2" color="#000000"><b>De:</b> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com]<br>
<b>Enviado:</b> quarta-feira, 11 de novembro de 2015 5:04<br>
<b>Para:</b> Avri Doria<br>
<b>Cc:</b> accountability-cross-community@icann.org<br>
<b>Assunto:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Stress Test 18: bylaw amendment suggestion<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">At the risk of being impolitic, it seems to me that the proposed suggestion essentially turns the concerns of the rest of the community on its head. Under this formulation, the GAC gets far
more than it has under the current bylaw, and the concerns of the rest of the community are barely met, if at all. The first time the GAC provides advice using "majority consensus" (a term sadly coined in the Executive Summary), we'll know that we got nothing
for our bargain.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">As Avri touches on, the new proposed paragraph significantly misstates the current obligations of the Board. In addition to the misstatement Avri cites, the paragraph attempts to codify the informal
descriptor "due deference" which is actually not what the current bylaws says. Furthermore, the idea that if the Board decides not to follow GAC <span style="color:rgb(0,0,0); text-align:justify">advice, the Bylaw "requires finding mutually agreed solutions
for implementation of that advice"</span> -- <u>the very advice the Board has decided not to follow</u>, is clearly incorrect -- the Board's only obligation is to try in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution. A requirement to "try" is not a requirement
to "find" and a "mutually acceptable solution" need not (and probably does not) involve implementation of the GAC advice (except in a revised fashion acceptable to the Board).</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Others have commented on the "ask" for a 2/3 requirement to reject advice, and I'll only say I agree with them. This is entirely consistent with the idea that the GAC is a co-equal (if not more than
equal) policymaker with the GNSO (and ccNSO), which in turn is entirely inconsistent with the fundamental mechanics of ICANN and the "balance of power' among SO/ACs which the Executive Summary boldly says we are not changing.</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">I have nothing but respect for the unique and critical role that the GAC plays at ICANN, and respect for the GAC members as well, so please do not see this as disrespect for either. It is, however,
a fairly complete rejection of this particular proposal, as stated. I may revisit it to see what can be salvaged, but I've run out of steam for the night, given that this is hour 20 since I awoke for our Tuesday meeting.</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Greg</font></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Avri Doria <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:1px #ccc solid; padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
On 09-Nov-15 11:28, Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva wrote:<br>
<br>
*/_if not followed, requires finding mutually agreed solutions for<br>
implementation of that advice_/*<br>
<br>
The current bylaws state:<br>
<span class=""><br>
> The Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try,<br>
> in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually<br>
> acceptable solution.<br>
<br>
<br>
</span>I am wondering whether the the words 'try , in good faith and in a<br>
timely and efficient manner, ' were accidentally dropped from the newly<br>
proposed formulation.<br>
<br>
Form my perspective there is a world of difference between requiring a<br>
genuine attempt to find a mutually acceptable solution and the<br>
requirement for finding one.<br>
<br>
In one case if the attempt fails, the Board is still free to make a to<br>
reject the advice. In the later, the Board seems bound to find a<br>
mutually agreed upon solution without the abilty to reject the advice if<br>
no such solution can be found.<br>
<br>
Can someone clarify this for me? I accept that having missed a few<br>
meeting lately, my understanding may be lagging, but that is my reason<br>
for returning to the proposed and existing language.<br>
<br>
thanks<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
avri<br>
</font></span><span class="im HOEnZb"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
---<br>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
<br>
</span>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>