<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hello Pedro<br>
<br>
Please see in-line<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/11/2015 12:43, Pedro Ivo Ferraz
da Silva wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:35911CE40A226E408BC47D6BF23AD230BE2DF8C3@URANO20.itamaraty.local"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" id="owaParaStyle"></style>
<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. <br>
</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
With regards to the above, and forgive me for asking as it is very
difficult to fully follow these discussions while at the IGF, but
isn't the call for raising the Board's rejection threshold of
consensus advice to 2/3rds the same issue that was opposed by much
of the community back in 2014?<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en">https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en</a><br>
<br>
If so, I am a little at a loss to understand the purpose of raising
it again in the context of these discussions, particularly as it has
not been part of the discussions in earlier versions of the proposal
or in the pubic comment.<br>
<br>
Many thanks for clarifying.<br>
<br>
Matthew <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:35911CE40A226E408BC47D6BF23AD230BE2DF8C3@URANO20.itamaraty.local"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<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
size="2" color="#000000" face="Tahoma"><b>De:</b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] em
nome de Greg Shatan [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>]<br>
<b>Enviado:</b> quarta-feira, 11 de novembro de 2015
5:04<br>
<b>Para:</b> Avri Doria<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Assunto:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Stress Test 18: bylaw
amendment suggestion<br>
</font><br>
</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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org">mshears@cdt.org</a>
+ 44 771 247 2987 </pre>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<br><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>