<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>
<div>The current bylaws obligate ICANN to try and find a mutually acceptable solution if the board decides not to follow GAC advice. That decision is based on the board having a simple majority voting not to follow GAC advice. Today, the board almost always
attempts to implement GAC advice and I’m not aware of instances where the board took a vote to either approve or reject GAC advice. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Our Recommendation #11 changed this one sentence in the bylaws regarding board obligations with respect to GAC advice. </div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;">
<blockquote type="cite"><span class="">
<dl>
<dl><dd>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 tThe 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.<br>
</dd></dl>
</dl>
</span></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>Our Recommendation #11 does two things by changing that one sentence. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>First, we narrow the board’s obligations only for GAC advice that was supported without a formal objection by any GAC member, which is how the GAC makes decisions now. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Second, we require our board to have 2/3 vote to reject that kind of GAC advice. 2/3 of 16 directors is 11 votes, whereas a majority is 9 votes.</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>If GAC advice came over with any formal objections by GAC members, the ICANN board could reject that advice with a simple majority, and would have no obligation to try and find a mutually acceptable solution if it did reject that GAC advice. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:12pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span><<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Keith Drazek <<a href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com">kdrazek@verisign.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Friday, December 18, 2015 at 10:15 AM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>"<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Does the proposed change to the GAC Bylaw create a new "mandatory voting requirement" for the ICANN Board?<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="auto">
<div>Greg raises very important points. Neither a "mandatory vote" nor a "presumption of acceptance" was intended. The only change proposed was to raise the threshold, under current practice, from simple majority to 2/3 if a vote was ever required at the last
stage of the Board's consideration of GAC Advice. Nothing more. This should be made clear to the bylaw drafters.</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature"><br>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">Regards,</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">Keith</div>
<div><br>
On Dec 18, 2015, at 12:53 AM, Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Alan,</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Nowhere does it say that there needs to be a "formal decision." If the existing Bylaws required a vote, or even a "formal decision," before entering into the "mutually acceptable solution" process,
the Bylaws would say so. Instead, a more flexible term was chosen -- "determines to take an action." Assuming competent lawyers, these language choices are meaningful and deliberate. Elsewhere, the Bylaws clearly state when there are votes required (some
variation of the word "vote" is used ~200 times in the ICANN Bylaws). "Determines to take an action" is a unique phrase within the bylaws and virtually unique outside of it -- indeed, all but one Google result when searching on that term is a reference to
this particular Bylaw. It's fairly clear to me that something less formal than a vote was intended by choosing this unique phrase.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">It's my understanding that this distinction is carried out in the Board's actual practices, which have utilized the flexibility offered by this language. As presently drafted, the Board is able
to identify a situation where it appears that they are going to take an action that would be inconsistent with GAC Advice; at that point, they would approach the GAC, tell them why and enter into the "mutually acceptable solution" process -- without requiring
a formal vote of the Board. This gives the Board more flexibility and leeway to work with the GAC, and it's my understanding that the Board has in fact worked in this manner. The CCWG proposal would take away that flexibility and mandate a formal vote of
the Board, requiring the Board to take an adversarial stance with the GAC. [Choosng to use the flatly negative word "reject" instead of the more nuanced phrase "take an action that is not consistent with" is just the icing on the cake.]</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">There is another issue raised by this new language. With this revision, it is far from clear what the status of GAC Advice that not been rejected by a 2/3 vote? If the Board takes a vote, but
the rejection fails to pass, is the GAC Advice now "accepted" (possibly by a vote of 1/3+1) and binding on ICANN? What about GAC Advice on which no vote has been taken -- is that Advice "accepted" and binding on ICANN and, if so, when? [Compare this to the
Community's right to reject a standard bylaws change -- if the community does not elect to do so, or attempts to do so and fails, that bylaw clearly become binding upon ICANN.] </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The combination of a 2/3 threshold and a mandatory vote to reject GAC Advice creates a presumption that GAC advice will be accepted. This presumption is novel and clearly elevates GAC Advice
to a new level of deference within the ICANN process.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Although none of this is explicitly stated in the detailed explanation in Annex 11, the more I consider this and the more people I talk to, the more convinced I am that what I've laid out above
is exactly what was intended by some of those involved in the drafting process for the Bylaw revision, and the rest of us just didn't see it at the time. Since it's not brought out in the CCWG's explanation, this fundamental change can "fly under the radar"
until the Proposal is approved.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I don't believe that this was the intention of the CCWG. If it's not the intention of the CCWG, then my alternative wording would remove this concern. If this is in fact the intention of the
CCWG then I think it needs to be part of the explanation set forth in the proposal, so that the intent and effect are clear, and any reader can clearly understand what we have wrought.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Finally, I have to say that this is not an "implementation level" concern. This is, if you will, a "policy level" concern. If this gets baked into the accepted proposal, then the implementers
will essentially be bound to carry this out in the implementation (i.e., the drafting of the "real" Bylaw language). Any later attempt to change a concept stated in the accepted and transmitted final proposal will face a very high set of hurdles, at best.
Now is the time to deal with this.</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 class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Alan Greenberg <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>Greg, you say that the current Bylaws do not reference voting. The current wording (<a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#XI-2.1j" target="_blank"> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#XI-2.1j</a>)
is "In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice..."<br>
<br>
How else is the Board able to formally decide on anything other than by voting? <br>
<br>
Alan<span class=""><br>
<br>
At 16/12/2015 03:09 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
</span>
<blockquote type="cite"><span class="">All,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
These concerns stem from a reading of the draft Bylaw (new language in red):<br>
<br>
<br>
<dl>
<dl><dd>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. 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 tThe 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.<br>
<br>
<br>
</dd></dl>
</dl>
</span><font face="verdana">​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.<span class=""><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
I would appreciate some clarification on these matters that I can bring back to my group.
<br>
<br>
I would also appreciate the CCWG considering a change in language to remove this ambiguity which is currently causing great consternation in my group.<br>
</span></font><span class=""><br>
I suggest the language below. This m<br>
ore closely track<br>
</span>​s​<span class=""><br>
the language of the existing bylaw and avoid the use of the term "vote," with its potential unintended consequences:<br>
<font face="verdana"><br>
</font></span>
<dl>
<dl><dd><span class="">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.<br>
</span></dd><dd>​ <br>
</dd><dd><font color="#0000FF">If the Board<br>
</font></dd><dd><font color="#0000FF">​ <br>
<span class=""></span></font></dd><dd><font color="#0000FF">determines to take an action that is not consistent with
<br>
</font></dd><dd><span class="">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,<br>
</span></dd><dd>​ <br>
</dd><dd><font color="#0000FF">​such determination must be supported by <br>
</font></dd><dd><font color="#0000FF">two-thirds of the Board,</font><span class=""> and the 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"><br>
</font></dd><dd><font face="verdana">​<br>
</font><br>
</dd></dl>
</dl>
<span class=""> <br>
I would appreciate your thoughts on this point and the revised language. Thank you.<br>
<br>
Greg<br>
</span><span class="">_______________________________________________<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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></span></blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><br>
<span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></span><br>
<span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</body>
</html>