<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Kavouss,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Thank you for your email. Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough. The language you are responding to is not what I propose; rather it is language that I believe more clearly expresses the intentions of some to force the board into voting and into "rejecting" GAC advice. I am not one who shares those intentions and I think many others who initially supported the Third Draft language do not share this intention either. This "disconnect" is the reason I started this thread, and I think that more participants are now seeing that the Third Draft language does more than merely raise a threshold from majority to 2/3.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">To be more specific, I am not suggesting that "determined" be replaced by "vote," and such an outcome would be the exact opposite of what I contend should happen here. So, I am sorry that your kind offer will not end this lengthy discussion.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I am of course fine with maintaining the obligation of the Board to inform the GAC when it determines that it will take an action inconsistent with GAC advice -- which is not the same as "rejecting" GAC advice, by the way. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The point is that the Board's "determination to take an action inconsistent with GAC advice" may not always take the form of a vote, and thus may not always produce the type of public notice that a Board vote will trigger. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">However, it seems that some in the CCWG want to force the Board into voting on GAC advice, to making any ICANN action inconsistent with GAC advice a "rejection" of the GAC, and possibly making it so that all GAC advice is accepted unless it is rejected by Board vote. I don't think is a consensus position of the CCWG, but right now we have language in the Third Draft proposal which can be read to do all these things. And that is why this thread is needed.</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><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 3:51 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div>Grec</div><div>I have followed this lengthy and inefficient exchange of e- mails since the last 10 days.</div><div>While I am not comfortable to see such an insistence,I agree to simply replace " determined" by vote and end this lengthy discussion.</div><div>I strongly disagree not to refer to the need that after non acceptance of the GAC advice , The Board shall so inform the GAC ( The second part of your last message )</div><div>In fact the obligation to inform the GAC. that its Advice was rejected is fundamental in order that both partied get into negotiations to find a satisfactory solution.</div><div>Publicly available BORAD ,s decision is not sufficient to trigger the negotiation between Board and GAC</div><span class=""><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss</div><div><br>Sent from my iPhone</div></span><div><div class="h5"><div><br>On 18 Dec 2015, at 19:59, Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">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">Mathieu,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I think Steve has now answered you more authoritatively than I could. Other current and former Board members could provide their perspectives as well. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">This type of flexibility was clearly contemplated when the [current] Bylaws were drafted. Consider this sentence: "<span style="font-size:12.8px"> </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">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>"</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">If this "determination" was intended to only be by formal vote, why not say so? The Bylaws are not shy about using the words "vote" and "voting." Why choose this unique construction in this one place in all the Bylaws if all you meant was "vote"?<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">If all that was contemplated by a vote, why have a separate requirement to inform and to state reasons? A formal vote will always be publicly reported, supported by a motion and rationale, so information/reasons would be taken care of by ordinary procedures? To my mind, this is stated so that the GAC is kept informed in the absence of a formal vote (or more to the point, as the Board sees that it is heading toward a negative vote and wants to engage in the "mutually acceptable solution" process.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">For the moment, I won't touch the difference between "rejection" and "determining to take an action not consistent" with something, but that is a real distinction.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">If we think this has been and should be an all-voting, all-the-time process (and I think Steve's email shows us otherwise), perhaps the Bylaw should (or would) look like this:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px">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 <font color="#0000ff">votes to reject</font> Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall <font color="#0000ff">provide</font> the Committee <font color="#0000ff">the motion and rationale stating</font> the reasons why it decided <font color="#0000ff">to reject</font> that advice. T</span><span style="font-size:12.8px">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><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px">But it doesn't.</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I'm sure you don't like finding a hole in the boat, and frankly I don't like it either. But boats do one thing when holes are plugged and another thing when holes are neglected. "Done is better than perfect" is a useful mantra. But so is "Sin in haste, repent at leisure."</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><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Mathieu Weill <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="FR" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Greg, All,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">You are saying : <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">« </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">It's my understanding (after looking into this) that the Board does not always take a formal vote when it "determines to take an action that is not consistent with" GAC advice. “</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I must confess I do not understand how a Board in general, and Icann’s in particular, can act through anything other than a voting decision (even if it can be a consensus decision, it’s still a type of vote) ? <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">This makes this discussion very hard to follow for me. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Thanks for helping me out here. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Mathieu<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">De :</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>De la part de</b> Greg Shatan<br><b>Envoyé :</b> vendredi 18 décembre 2015 17:30<br><b>À :</b> Steve DelBianco<br><b>Cc :</b> <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br><b>Objet :</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Does the proposed change to the GAC Bylaw create a new "mandatory voting requirement" for the ICANN Board?<u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Steve,<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">I know that's all that we (at least, you and I) wanted the addition of that one sentence to accomplish. Initially, I was convinced that is all that was accomplished. The more I think about this and discuss it, the less convinced I am. Actually, I'm fairly we have accomplished, intentionally or not (or intentionally by some and not by others), quite a bit more than that by adding that sentence. (Actually we added a clause, not a sentence, and that distinction is important.)<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Your walk-through includes one critical assumption about current Board practice that I don't believe is always supported by the facts. You say "</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">That decision is based on the board having a simple majority voting not to follow GAC advice. </span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">" It's my understanding (after looking into this) that the Board does not always take a formal vote when it "determines to take an action that is not consistent with" GAC advice. Please see my email to Alan Greenberg last night where I run through this in detail, so I don't make this email longer than it has to be.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">In our haste and desire for finality, it is easy to assume that "determines to take an action" is the same as "voting" and that "an action that is not consistent with" GAC advice is the same as "rejecting" GAC advice. These are bad assumptions (again see my email to Alan for more detail).<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">I know that the "draft Bylaws" are conceptual in nature (a point I've expressed myself many times), but words still matter. Getting the concept right is what matters at this stage. And I don't think we got it right -- unless we intended to force the Board to vote every time it decides to take an action that is not consistent with GAC advice and we intended to frame that vote as a "rejection" (and we know how much everybody loves rejection). If that was our intention, we need to state it clearly and expressly and agree that is what we're doing. If that was not our intention, we need to change the language of the draft bylaw. We can't count on drafting notes. This will get too much attention as a series of new and/or higher hurdles to doing things any way other than the GAC way.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Finally, the reason it's important that this is a clause not a sentence: our new language is inserted as a predicate clause to the "mutually acceptable solution" process. As a result, you can't get to that process unless you "reject" the GAC first. In other words, the Board loses the flexibility it currently has (and uses) to engage the GAC in that process without a formal Board vote. This was not intended and must be corrected.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Greg<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Steve DelBianco <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org" target="_blank">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">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. <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Our Recommendation #11 changed this one sentence in the bylaws regarding board obligations with respect to GAC advice. <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm"><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p></blockquote></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Our Recommendation #11 does two things by changing that one sentence. <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">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. <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">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. <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Keith Drazek <<a href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com" target="_blank">kdrazek@verisign.com</a>><br><b>Date: </b>Friday, December 18, 2015 at 10:15 AM<br><b>To: </b>Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>><br><b>Cc: </b>"<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>" <<a 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?<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Regards,<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Keith<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><br>On Dec 18, 2015, at 12:53 AM, Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">Alan,<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">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.]<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">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.] <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">Greg<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">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<br><br>At 16/12/2015 03:09 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br><br><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">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><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">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><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">​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><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><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:<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">​ <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:blue">If the Board</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:blue">​ </span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:blue">determines to take an action that is not consistent with </span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">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,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">​ <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:blue">​such determination must be supported by </span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:blue">two-thirds of the Board,</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> 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.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">​</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> <br>I would appreciate your thoughts on this point and the revised language. Thank you.<br><br>Greg<br>_______________________________________________<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><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">_______________________________________________<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><br><br><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div></div></div></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" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></span><br></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>