<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<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 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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
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.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle19
{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:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
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=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>I’m sorry to object again Mathieu, but your report left out a proposal that, by my count, was supported by nearly a dozen different members of the ST18 working group. I am not at all sure why the summary does not include it. It took many forms, but here is my own version of it:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>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. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>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. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Any GAC advice approved by <b><u>a full GAC 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 two-thirds (2/3) of the Board. </u></b><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><u><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p><span style='text-decoration:none'> </span></o:p></span></u></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><u><span style='color:#1F497D'>With respect to such advice</span></u></b><span style='color:#1F497D'>, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>I would respectfully, but firmly, object to the exclusion of a proposal that has the support of a large number of participants and members – I think there are at least three proposals to consider. And indeed, a fourth (no change from Draft Report #2) is also plausible.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Best<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Paul Rosenzweig<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com"><span style='color:#0563C1'>paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>O: +1 (202) 547-0660<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>M: +1 (202) 329-9650<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='color:#1F497D'><a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9"><span style='color:#0563C1'>Link to my PGP Key</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] <br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 23, 2015 12:42 PM<br><b>To:</b> Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org><br><b>Subject:</b> [CCWG-ACCT] TR: ST18 subgroup report Nov 23<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'>Dear Colleagues, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Please find attached a report from the ST18 subgroup, for discussion during the CCWG call in about 12 hours. This is a co-chair summary, with options about which we will discuss in order to define our group’s way forward for the Draft Report. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>I want to express my warmest appreciation and thanks to all the ST18 subgroup colleagues who participated with great interest to our work, and especially to the colleagues who provided constructive inputs to these discussions. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Best<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Mathieu<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=FR style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:FR'>De :</span></b><span lang=FR style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:FR'> Mathieu Weill [<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>] <br><b>Envoyé :</b> lundi 23 novembre 2015 18:39<br><b>À :</b> <a href="mailto:s18@icann.org">s18@icann.org</a><br><b>Objet :</b> ST18 subgroup report Nov 23<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal>Dear Colleagues, <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Please find attached the (very summarized) report of our work that will be presented tomorrow in the CCWG. It will be circulated momentarily to the full group. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks again for all the constructive and valuable inputs you have provided to advance this key item of our work. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Best,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Mathieu<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>