<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="DE-CH" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Dear Keith<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">We are having very interesting discussions in the ST-18 subgroup. Would be really good to discuss your points there.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Just briefly to respond that the GAC Dublin consensus input to the CCWG supports the autonomy of ACs to establish their own definition of consensus, that for the GAC it
is currently so that it decides on its own definition of consensus (which triggers the mutually accepted solution procedure), and that the “decisional role” is being offered not only to the GAC but all interested SO and ACs. As to the 2/3 threshold it is nothing
new and it was part of the GAC Dublin consensus input.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">This discussion has not been triggered by the GAC, but by the ST18, which has led to discussing to all these interconnected points.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Best regards and hope to discuss further on the details in the ST18-Subgroup<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Jorge
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="DE">Von:</span></b><span lang="DE"> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org]
<b>Im Auftrag von </b>Drazek, Keith<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Dienstag, 17. November 2015 20:41<br>
<b>An:</b> accountability-cross-community@icann.org<br>
<b>Betreff:</b> [CCWG-ACCT] ST-18 and 2/3 Threshold Proposal<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">All,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Here are my current thoughts on our ongoing discussions around ST-18, the 2/3 threshold issue, and the GAC’s participation in the community mechanism:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The CCWG’s mandate is to empower the community
<u>as a whole</u> to better hold ICANN and its Board accountable. Our mission is not to modify the influence of one SO or AC relative to the Board, or to one another, nor to enable or encourage such change in the future. This process should not be used by individual
groups to seek increased influence relative to others. That’s why we are proposing a unified community as the sole Designator, and set thresholds for decisions supported by multiple ACs and SOs.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Under the current discussions, it appears that a subset of GAC members want three new “powers” that do not exist today: (1) the right to hold a decisional role in the community mechanism, (2) a 2/3 threshold for Board
rejection of consensus advice, and (3) the ability to adjust the definition of consensus that would trigger the Board’s special obligations. Why is the CCWG now focusing on the 11th-hour introduction of the 2/3 board threshold along with flexibility to change
current practice on the definition of consensus? Both of those stand to increase the influence of the GAC alone over the Board and other community groups.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">No one is trying to tell the GAC how to define consensus for its internal deliberations or advice. Rather, ST-18 simply reinforces the current practice that the Board’s obligations kick in only when the GAC’s consensus
is consistent with current practice – reflecting the UN definition/absence of formal objection. Any change to this practice must be viewed as empowering the GAC alone over the Board and potentially in a disproportionate way relative to others.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">By participating in the community mechanism as a co-equal, the GAC will be able to contribute to this joint community empowerment in a decisional way, if it chooses to do so. This is already a big change (that some are
uncomfortable with) but it shows that the rest of the community respects the important role of governments and the GAC in our community processes.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">In my view, the CCWG should resist pressure to intentionally or inadvertently increase the relative influence of any one group, and stay focused on the joint community empowerment envisioned in our charter. This should
not be an opportunity for any group to secure individual benefits they have previously been denied.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Thanks and regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Keith<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>