<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Of necessity, the "decided lack of
expertise about DNS" offered as a description of the GAC and "a
very simple example" offered concerning reserved identifiers,
which would include two-alpha (iso3166-1) sequences (of length
two), would also apply to one-alpha sequences (of length 1), for
which members of the Technical Liaison Group, who may also suffer
from a "decided lack of expertise about DNS", went on record
expressing concern. <br>
<br>
Eric Brunner-Williams<br>
Eugene, Oregon<br>
<br>
On 12/19/15 4:14 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:DM2PR07MB703F214975961F6662D3B8BA1E30@DM2PR07MB703.namprd07.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
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:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",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-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Mark<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Thanks
for a strong and quite explicit statement about why you
think policy making in ICANN should be dominated by
governments. Let me comment on the claim that the GAC is
composed of “public policy experts” and that ICANN should
therefore show deference to its advice.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Having
worked in the GNSO for many years, one of the key
frustrations policy makers within that SO always have is
that the GAC members’<a moz-do-not-send="true"
name="_MailEndCompose"> policy advice more often than not
suffers from a decided lack of expertise about DNS and
about the impact of their advice on actual users and
suppliers of DNS. To provide a very simple example,
certain GAC claims about how to protect geographic or
international organization names showed a fairly woeful
lack of expertise about the practical implications of
their demands on registries, a total lack of concern about
the rights of many individual internet users of DNS, and a
complete innocence about relevant international laws. For
the most part I see governments advancing claims based on
political demands of certain groups rather than on any
special expertise.<o:p></o:p></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">This
is not to say that governments don’t raise significant and
legitimate concerns. They often do. The point, however, is
that these concerns are developed in a narrow,
all-government silo without the participation and consensus
of many of the affected stakeholders. If governments want
their input to have the same legitimacy as that of the GNSO,
they really ought to participate directly in the GNSO and be
subject to the discipline of interacting at all times with
all relevant stakeholders and developing consensus among
them.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">And
I would say that within the GNSO there are experienced
lawyers, policy analysts, economists, who often have more
expertise in the area than your average GAC member. The
claim that GAC represents the consensus views of 155
governments is pretty wild; all of us have watched GAC
meetings and we know that only about 60-70 governments
actually attend any given ICANN meeting and only a dozen
actively participate. If you really believe that GAC is a
global legislator, then it ought to be relatively easy for
you to get high-level representatives from these 155
governments in a room and negotiate a binding international
treaty, which would be subject to the discipline of
ratification by your national legislatures. Somehow that
never seems to happen. Seems GAC wants to have it both ways:
global legislative power without any of the democratic
checks and balances and without even directly reaching
consensus with the affected stakeholders. If you’re
wondering why there’s a lot of resistance to GAC influence
in this process, that’s why. And I know most people agree
with me but are too intimidated or too diplomatic to say so.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Have
a nice holiday<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">--MM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
<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-freetext" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Mark Carvell<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 18, 2015 1:58 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Phil Corwin <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com"><psc@vlaw-dc.com></a><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>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Does the proposed
change to the GAC Bylaw create a new "mandatory voting
requirement" for the ICANN Board?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Dear
Phil and Greg <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Man
of your concerns are familiar of course from last
year's consultation on proposed bylaw changes
following the joint Board and GAC "BGRI" discussions
and agreement on how to implement the ATRT2
recommendations relating to the status of GAC advice
and related procedures. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Such
is the extent now - much more so than in the first 15
years of ICANN - of meaningful interaction between the
public policy experts on the GAC and the
non-governmental stakeholders directly engaged in
developing ICANN policy (witness the GAC-GNSO
Consultation Group), as well as between the Board and
the GAC thanks largely to implementation of the
recommendations of both ATRT reviews, thankfully we
can expect substantial rejection of GAC advice by the
Board to be an extremely rare occurrence. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">I would
underline in this context that substantial rejection
of the advice of such a large number of governments
(GAC membership is now 155) acting in concert to
safeguard the global public interest and ensure
consistency with national and international laws,
would be a major, politically highly contentious step
for the Board to take. While I can understand
stakeholder anxiety about risk of extending the role
of governments to the detriment of the successfully
embedded multi-stakeholder model that is ICANN, this
is why I would argue it is not unreasonable for a
decision to reject public policy interest-based advice
to be accompanied by a higher threshold than simple
majority. The evaluation of that support for rejection
needs to be rigorous and a formally instituted and
fully accountable voting procedure is the most
appropriate means for achieving this. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">You
will recall it was decided in October 2014 to put "on
hold" the Board's and the GAC's agreement to institute
the two thirds threshold for rejection in the bylaws -
partly because the rationale was not well-communicated
(and as a consequence an avalanche of objections was
received) but also because the timing was wrong as
IANA stewardship transition loomed large. I would
argue the timing is as right as it will ever be in the
context of Stress Test 18 and I welcomed its addition
to the proposed text developed by the sub-group.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">The
Board and the GAC have agreed a set procedures
consistent with ATRT recommendations for ensuring GAC
advice does not fall between any cracks or hang in
limbo. See <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atrt-implementation-report-29jan13-en.pdf"
target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atrt-implementation-report-29jan13-en.pdf </a> All
elements of formal GAC advice are tracked on an open
register that allows the response and follow up to be
monitored <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/GAC+Register+of+Advice"
target="_blank">https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/GAC+Register+of+Advice</a>
This serves to maximise transparency of whether
advice is accepted or rejected - and if the latter, of
the enactment of the procedure to negotiate and
determine if a mutually acceptable solution is
possible. Default to acceptance of advice if the Board
does not respond to the GAC would not happen. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">I
hope this is helpful in explaining why I believe the
procedure in the current formulation of Stress Test 18
should be supported: a) it ensures precision, shared
understanding and transparency of fully-informed Board
decisions in these rare cases when rejection is a
possibility; b) it enables the GAC to fulfil its role
and responsibilities in respect of safeguarding the
global public interest; and c) it serves the best
interests of the ICANN community.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Kind
regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Mark<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Mark Carvell<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">
United Kingdom Representative on the
Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Global Internet Governance
Policy<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Department for Culture, Media
and Sport<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk"
target="_blank">mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 18 December 2015 at 15:16, Phil
Corwin <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com" target="_blank">psc@vlaw-dc.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC
1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">As
the issue of the role of the GAC within
post-transition ICANN is the one most likely
to cause Congressional (and perhaps even NTIA)
opposition to the transition proposal -- if
there is a perception of an unacceptable level
of governmental influence over ICANN -- it is
important to come to a common and acceptable
understanding on this matter. As the ST18
subgroup came to an agreement only in the last
few minutes of its final call it is perfectly
understandable that there may be differing
views on the text’s meaning.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Greg
raises an interesting question as to what
happens if the GAC provides some very
unpalatable advice and the Board neither
advises the GAC that it intends to take an
inconsistent action , or declines to take a
formal vote when the GAC advice is of the
consensus variety. Does the advice just wait
in limbo indefinitely, or is there a point in
time when it is deemed both accepted and in
effect if the Board has declined to take any
action?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:navy">Philip
S. Corwin, Founding Principal</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:navy">Virtualaw
LLC</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:navy">1155
F Street, NW</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:navy">Suite
1050</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:navy">Washington,
DC 20004</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:navy"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:202-559-8597" target="_blank">202-559-8597</a>/Direct</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:navy"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:202-559-8750" target="_blank">202-559-8750</a>/Fax</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:navy"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:202-255-6172" target="_blank">202-255-6172</a>/cell</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:navy"> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:navy">Twitter:
@VlawDC</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><i><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:navy">"Luck
is the residue of design" -- Branch
Rickey</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a></a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Schaefer, Brett<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 18, 2015
9:55 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Greg Shatan; Alan Greenberg<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
target="_blank">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Does the
proposed change to the GAC Bylaw create a
new "mandatory voting requirement" for the
ICANN Board?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Greg,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Agree
entirely. This is not what I understood to be
the intent of the ST 18 language.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">The
more Paul and I have gone over this, the more
concerned we have become over the language. We
have expressed similar concerns in our public
comment along with suggestions for alternative
text. We need to fix this before moving
forward.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I
fully admit to bearing part of the blame in
this – we should have thought this through
during the ST 18 discussions. But then we were
under an enormous pressure to meet the
deadline and text was being proposed on the
fly during the Adobe chat sessions. The past
few weeks have finally provided some time to
reflect and think things through. That
reflection should be taken into account. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Best,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Brett
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a></a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Greg Shatan<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 18, 2015 12:52
AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Alan Greenberg<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
target="_blank">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Does the
proposed change to the GAC Bylaw create a new
"mandatory voting requirement" for the ICANN
Board?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Alan,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
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.]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
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.] </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Greg</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">On
Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Alan Greenberg
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca"
target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">Greg,
you say that the current Bylaws do not
reference voting. The current wording (<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#XI-2.1j"
target="_blank">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#XI-2.1j">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#XI-2.1j</a></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<br>
<br>
At 16/12/2015 03:09 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">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):<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">​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.<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><br>
I suggest the language below. This m<br>
ore closely track<br>
​s​<br>
the language of the existing bylaw and
avoid the use of the term "vote," with its
potential unintended consequences:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">​
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in"><span
style="color:blue">If the Board</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in"><span
style="color:blue">​ </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in"><span
style="color:blue">determines to take an
action that is not consistent with
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">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,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">​
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in"><span
style="color:blue">​such determination
must be supported by </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in"><span
style="color:blue">two-thirds of the
Board,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">​</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><br>
<br>
I would appreciate your thoughts on this
point and the revised language. Thank
you.<br>
<br>
Greg<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<hr style="width:150.0pt" align="left"
size="2" noshade="noshade" width="500">
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#004B8D">Brett</span></b>
<b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#004B8D">Schaefer</span></b><i><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#58595B"><br>
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in
International Regulatory Affairs<br>
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis
Institute for National Security and Foreign
Policy</span></i><br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#58595B">The
Heritage Foundation<br>
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br>
Washington, DC 20002<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:202-608-6097" target="_blank">202-608-6097</a></span><br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#004B8D"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://heritage.org/" target="_blank"><span
style="color:#004B8D;text-decoration:none">heritage.org</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">_______________________________________________<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"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center">
<hr style="color:#A0A0A0" align="center"
size="1" noshade="noshade" width="100%">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">No
virus found in this message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avg.com" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a><br>
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database:
4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15<br>
Internal Virus Database is out of date.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</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>
</body>
</html>