<div dir="ltr"><div>Grec,</div><div>You did not reply to my question?</div><div>Whose interests you are defending?</div><div>I think ,we all should to the extent practiceable be neutral in reading and or examining a given text from Professional view points.</div><div>Having said that , we do not need to change that part . There are other major problems in ST18.</div><div>HOWEVER, THE LANGUAGE USED CURRENTLY IS CONCEPTUAL AND NOT THE EXACT bylaws legal text</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-12-16 9:48 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">Interesting you say this now, even though it was raised sometime last month without attention:</p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-November/008349.html" target="_blank">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-November/008349.html</a></p>
<p dir="ltr">Maybe now that you've written a full page about it, will warrant attention. Guess it's a saying of "the more you look at one thing, the less you see other stuff around". The ccwg focused on consensus and I hope they will get that for all I care. Good luck with trying to "eat the cake and have it" at the same time, even though there was IMO no significant reason to want to eat the cake in the first place (as it's half baked).</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On Dec 16, 2015 9:10 AM, "Greg Shatan" <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div><div class="h5"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">All,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">In reviewing the Third Draft Proposal, concerns have been raised within my constituency that the proposed Bylaw does more than replace an existing "majority" threshold with a new "2/3" threshold. The concern is that the proposed Bylaw introduces a "mandatory vote" by the Board in order to reject GAC Advice where the Bylaws do not currently require a Board vote. Further, there appears to be a concern that, if the Board does not take a vote and affirmatively reject a piece of GAC advice, then that GAC advice becomes binding on ICANN.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">These concerns stem from a reading of the draft Bylaw (new language in red):</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;padding:0px;border:currentColor"><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;padding:0px;border:currentColor"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><p class="MsoNormal">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. 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. <span style="color:red">Any Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory Committee 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 of the Board, and t</span><s>T</s>he Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p></div></blockquote></blockquote><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline">The current language of the Bylaw makes no reference to voting, only to the far more ambiguous "determines to take an action." As such, adding a reference to a vote can be seen to add a new element (aside from the introduction of a 2/3 threshold): the element of a bylaws-mandated vote. Similarly, the statement that GAC Advice can only be rejected by a vote of the Board can be read to state that if no such vote is taken (or if such vote is taken and fails) that the GAC Advice is then something ICANN is bound to follow.</div></font><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"><br></div></font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline">I don't think either of these things were intended by the CCWG. Whether they are misreadings of our draft language or unintended consequences of the drafting, this concern is troubling. If it is the intent of some of those drafting this language to force a vote where none is currently required, then that is even more troubling.</div></font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"><br></div></font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline">I would appreciate some clarification on these matters that I can bring back to my group. </div></font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"><br></div></font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline">I would also appreciate the CCWG considering a change in language to remove this ambiguity which is currently causing great consternation in my group.</div></font></div><div><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">I suggest the language below. This m</div>ore closely track<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">s</div> the language of the existing bylaw and avoid the use of the term "vote," with its potential unintended consequences:</span><br></div><div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"><br></div></font></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;padding:0px;border:currentColor"><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;padding:0px;border:currentColor"><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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. 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.<div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"> </div></span><font color="#0000ff" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">If the Board<div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"> </div></font><font color="#0000ff" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline">determines to take an action that is not consistent with </div></font><span style="color:red;font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection,<div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"> </div></span><font color="#0000ff"><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline">such determination must be supported by </div></span><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">two-thirds of the Board,</span></font><span style="color:red;font-family:verdana,sans-serif"> and t</span><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">he Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.</span><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"></div></font></div></blockquote></blockquote><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"> </div></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I would appreciate your thoughts on this point and the revised language. Thank you.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div>
<br></div></div><span>_______________________________________________<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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></span></blockquote></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>