<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Grec, Dear Milton</div><div>Dear All,</div><div>Your analysis is an exageration of the situation.</div><div>I do not share your views that GAC is editor of GNSO.This type of analysis is provocative and helpless.</div><div>What I said and repeating now is ,any such discussion is outside the mandate and terms of refernce of CCWG.</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-01-31 22:26 GMT+01:00 Avri Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
One thing to note on this is that the Board has lately been coming back<br>
to the GNSO while doing its advice considerations. While the process<br>
long allowed for it, until recently the Board did not consult with the<br>
GNSO while going through its negotiations with the GAC, or anyone else<br>
for that matter. Now it does. The GNSO has even initiated new<br>
recommendation and advice procedures for dealing with such requests for<br>
clarification and possibly change from the Board.<br>
<br>
So while very true in the past, it should no longer be the case that the<br>
GNSO recommendations are subordinated to the GAC advice. As currently<br>
practiced, the GNSO will have a voice in those discussions. Add to that<br>
the beginnings of the GAC and GAC members' increasing participation in<br>
the PDP working groups and we should have an improved situation that<br>
removes the feeling of the GNSO being subordinate to the GAC.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
On 31-Jan-16 15:52, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
> I think a reason the GNSO is (or appears to be) subordinate to the GAC<br>
> is that the GAC comes to the Board with its advice on GNSO<br>
> recommendations after the GNSO has gone through months (or more<br>
> likely, years) of work on its recommendations. The GAC then advises<br>
> the Board on how the GNSO recommendations should be modified. If the<br>
> Board doesn't agree, it then communes with the GAC to work things out,<br>
> a discussion that the GNSO is rarely invited to.<br>
><br>
> In a sense, the GAC gets to be the "editor" of the GNSO, but not vice<br>
> versa. If GAC advice becomes harder to reject, the corollary is that<br>
> it becomes easier for the GAC to edit (or even "overrule") the GNSO.<br>
><br>
> The improvements in cooperation between the GAC and the GNSO, and the<br>
> increase in GAC member participation in both CCWGs and gTLD policy<br>
> recommendation processes, are likely to result in less advice by the<br>
> GAC that modifies GNSO or cross-community policy recommendations.<br>
><br>
> Of course, there is always the danger of the "second bite"; if the GAC<br>
> is not aligned with the consensus position in a policy recommendation<br>
> outcome, it can turn its viewpoint into "GAC advice" and achieve its<br>
> result that way. The more GAC participates in the process of<br>
> developing recommendations, including the building of consensus, the<br>
> more glaring second bite attempts will be. The GAC is alone in this<br>
> power. No other SO/AC has quite this ability. An SO (or part<br>
> thereof) and ALAC would need to resort to RfR/IRP or Empowered<br>
> Community mechanisms to get a second bite. Arguably, SSAC and RSSAC<br>
> would have this ability, but it is constrained by each AC's narrow<br>
> technical mission.<br>
><br>
> I think this is all part of the undercurrent of these discussions.<br>
> Terms like "subordinate" are probably too crude and pejorative to be<br>
> of much use in discussing these issues. But the issues exist.<br>
><br>
> Greg<br>
><br>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh<br>
</div></div><span>> <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Milton<br>
> Pls kindly do not judge other of not understanding the issue.<br>
> I fulléy understand the case.<br>
> Malcolm wants to modify the current structure and functions of<br>
> ICANN whether in your views GNSO is or is not sub ordinate of GAC<br>
> ( WHICH i DO NOT BELIEVE SO ) .<br>
> What I said was the proposal of Malcolm ,while quite positive was<br>
> irelevant to the work we are doing ( accountability ) as it dioes<br>
> propose restructuring with which I categorically object since it<br>
> is outside of our mandate.<br>
> Pls respect others<br>
> Tks<br>
> BEST REGARDS MY DEAR PROFESSOR<br>
><br>
><br>
> 2016-01-30 23:56 GMT+01:00 <<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a><br>
</span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>>>:<br>
<span>><br>
> Dear Paul<br>
><br>
> I feel that the consensus requirement was accepted in Dublin<br>
> as another element of the GAC position agreed then (together<br>
> with the 2/3 and other elements).<br>
><br>
> And as you know we actively participate in discussions and<br>
> contribute to common ground proposals as much as wecan.<br>
><br>
> regards<br>
><br>
> Jorge<br>
><br>
> Von meinem iPhone gesendet<br>
><br>
> > Am 30.01.2016 um 23:15 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig<br>
> <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
</span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>>:<br>
<span>> ><br>
> > Sure Jorge<br>
> ><br>
> > I'll happily agree with you that everyone who spoke to the<br>
> issue of the<br>
> > 2/3rd vote that was a government (as opposed to the rest of<br>
> the community)<br>
> > supported it.<br>
> ><br>
> > In return, ought you not to acknowledge that the entire<br>
> opposition to the<br>
> > full consensus/ST18 proposal is exactly 5 countries? Nobody<br>
> outside the GAC<br>
> > affirmatively supports less than full consensus and many<br>
> (most notably the<br>
> > gNSO) actively opposes it. Ought you not to acknowledge<br>
> that the tiny<br>
> > minority of 5 dissenters is who is blocking consensus on<br>
> that aspect of the<br>
> > issue?<br>
> ><br>
> > And, since we are asking questions -- why didn't the<br>
> government of<br>
> > Switzerland submit comments?<br>
> ><br>
> > Paul<br>
> ><br>
> > Paul Rosenzweig<br>
> > <a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
</span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>><br>
> > O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" value="+12025470660">+1 (202) 547-0660</a> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660><br>
> > M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" value="+12023299650">+1 (202) 329-9650</a> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650><br>
> > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739><br>
<span>> > Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>
> > Link to my PGP Key<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > -----Original Message-----<br>
> > From: <a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>><br>
</span><span>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>>]<br>
> > Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 4:40 PM<br>
> > To: <a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
</span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>><br>
> > Cc: <a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net">egmorris1@toast.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net">egmorris1@toast.net</a>>;<br>
> <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
<div><div class="h5">> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11<br>
> ><br>
> > Dear Paul<br>
> ><br>
> > As I said I cannot and would not dare to speak for the GAC.<br>
> ><br>
> > But in any group where expressing one's opinion is not<br>
> compulsory, normally<br>
> > a majority does remain silent and those with a strong<br>
> sentiment speak out,<br>
> > factually "representing" in some way the main currents of<br>
> thought in such a<br>
> > group.<br>
> ><br>
> > I guess this happens all across the board and in all<br>
> constituencies, as it<br>
> > happens in our CCWG, where some of us (to varying degrees)<br>
> cope a lot of the<br>
> > conversations while the majority of the +150 (?) members and<br>
> participants<br>
> > are normally silent.<br>
> ><br>
> > So, I guess that based on this "voluntary" principle the<br>
> data you mention on<br>
> > the 2/3 element is significant, at least in showing that<br>
> there seems not to<br>
> > be any government considering that threshold as something<br>
> they should object<br>
> > (quite to the contrary it seems). And of the governments<br>
> which participated<br>
> > there is quite an interesting variety in regional terms.<br>
> ><br>
> > best regards<br>
> ><br>
> > Jorge<br>
> ><br>
> > Von meinem iPhone gesendet<br>
> ><br>
> >>> Am 30.01.2016 um 22:14 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig<br>
> >> <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
</div></div>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>>:<br>
<div><div class="h5">> >><br>
> >> Jorge<br>
> >><br>
> >> I took you up on the implicit challenge and have just spent<br>
> an hour<br>
> > happily<br>
> >> reading all of the government comments on CCWG-A Third<br>
> Draft. I may<br>
> > have<br>
> >> missed a comment, but I don't think so.<br>
> >><br>
> >> I can happily report the following to the community:<br>
> >><br>
> >> 15 governments commented on the Third Draft report. Of<br>
> those 14<br>
> >> addressed Rec 11 and 7 also addressed Rec 1. One<br>
> government (Italy)<br>
> >> addressed only Rec 2.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Of the 7 who addressed Rec 1: 4 governments supported GAC<br>
> voting in<br>
> >> the EC (Brazil, Argentina, Japan, and NZ) though two (Japan<br>
> and NZ)<br>
> >> expressed caution about this. Two governments said GAC<br>
> should be<br>
> >> advisory only<br>
> >> (Ireland/Denmark) and one (UK) said that the decision<br>
> should be up to<br>
> >> the GAC.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Of the 14 who addressed Rec 11:<br>
> >> -- All who spoke to the issue supported the 2/3rd vote<br>
> >> rejection rule. Some were silent<br>
> >> -- Eight governments supported the current full<br>
> consensus rule<br>
> >> (Australia, NZ, UK, Japan, Sweden, Ireland, Canada, and<br>
> Denmark); five<br>
> >> opposed it (Brazil, France, Argentina, Portugal, India);<br>
> one (Norway)<br>
> >> noted lack of GAC consensus.<br>
> >><br>
> >> So my assessment is that a very small sample of 6<br>
> governments splits<br>
> >> 2-1 in favor of a GAC voting role in the EC and a somewhat<br>
> larger<br>
> >> sample of 13 governments splits 8-5 in favor of ST18 and<br>
> full consensus.<br>
> >><br>
> >> To be honest, I think that doesn't tell us much. There are 153<br>
> >> governments in the GAC. A sample of 10% probably says<br>
> nothing about<br>
> >> sentiment in that body. Nonetheless the data speak for<br>
> themselves at<br>
> > least as far as they go.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Paul<br>
> >><br>
> >> Paul Rosenzweig<br>
> >> <a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
</div></div>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>><br>
> >> O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" value="+12025470660">+1 (202) 547-0660</a> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660><br>
> >> M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" value="+12023299650">+1 (202) 329-9650</a> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650><br>
> >> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739><br>
<span>> >> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>
> >> Link to my PGP Key<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> -----Original Message-----<br>
> >> From: <a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>><br>
</span><span>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>>]<br>
> >> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 3:04 PM<br>
</span>> >> To: <a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net">egmorris1@toast.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net">egmorris1@toast.net</a>><br>
> >> Cc: <a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>;<br>
> >> <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
<span>> >> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11<br>
> >><br>
> >> Hi Ed<br>
> >><br>
> >> I don't know the numbers by heart, but I'll guess they are<br>
> on the<br>
> >> public comment sheet produced by staff (actually I just saw<br>
> in their<br>
> >> ppt that out of 90 comments 17% come from govts).<br>
> >><br>
> >> But let's not go down that road: if we count who<br>
> participates and<br>
> >> extend it to other constituencies we will also see the<br>
> "same faces" all<br>
> > over again:<br>
> >> that is a consequence of the principle of voluntary<br>
> participation.<br>
> >><br>
> >> In the GAC this is "compensated" with our voluntary high<br>
> consensus<br>
> >> threshold which requires to include any interested<br>
> delegation into a<br>
> > consensus.<br>
> >><br>
> >> regards<br>
> >> Jorge<br>
> >><br>
> >> Von meinem iPhone gesendet<br>
> >><br>
> >>> Am 30.01.2016 um 20:54 schrieb Edward Morris<br>
</span>> <<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net">egmorris1@toast.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net">egmorris1@toast.net</a>>>:<br>
<span>> >>><br>
> >>> Hi Jorge,<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Thanks for this.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> I believe the GAC has around 140 members, give or take a<br>
> few. As<br>
> >>> you've<br>
> >> gone through all the public comments filed by governments<br>
> would be so<br>
> >> kind as to us know how many governments actually filed<br>
> public comments<br>
> >> and what percentage of GAC membership that represents?<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Thanks,<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Ed Morris<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone<br>
> >>><br>
> >>>> On 30 Jan 2016, at 19:46, <<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a><br>
</span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>>><br>
> >> <<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a><br>
<div><div class="h5">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>>> wrote:<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> Dear Paul<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> I cannot speak for the GAC of course, but the last<br>
> consensus input<br>
> >>>> on<br>
> >> ST18 we had was the Dublin Communique.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> The subsequent Rec 11 did not satisfy some governments,<br>
> as they<br>
> >>>> basically<br>
> >> thought that it did not comply with the "autonomy in defining<br>
> >> consensus"-element agreed in Dublin.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> This may be checked with the comments filed in the third<br>
> public<br>
> >>>> comment<br>
> >> period on the third draft report by governments.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> I think I have gone through all public comments filed by<br>
> governments<br>
> >>>> and<br>
> >> I'm not aware of any position rejecting or objecting to Rec<br>
> 11 because<br>
> >> it would consider that it went "too far" i.e. because they<br>
> would<br>
> >> actively disagree with the 2/3.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> Other colleagues may of course correct and/or complement<br>
> me if I<br>
> >>>> have<br>
> >> missed something.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> regards<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> Jorge<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>>> Am 30.01.2016 um 20:19 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig<br>
> >> <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
</div></div>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>>:<br>
<div><div class="h5">> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> May I ask a question -- is the GAC willing to disclose<br>
> the current<br>
> >>>>> split of opinion within the GAC regarding Rec 11?<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> The last we heard was that the GAC had not reached<br>
> consensus on the<br>
> >>>>> question. One infers (I think infer is actually too<br>
> soft a word<br>
> >>>>> but I use it to be certain I am not overstating the<br>
> case) that some<br>
> >>>>> members of the GAC support Rec 11 as written and some do<br>
> not. One<br>
> >>>>> also suspects (though here I am less certain) that some<br>
> of the GAC<br>
> >>>>> members oppose Rec 11 because it does not go far enough<br>
> (they want<br>
> >>>>> Rec 11 plus more (e.g. removal of the consensus<br>
> >>>>> language)) while others do not support Rec 11 because it<br>
> goes too<br>
> >>>>> far (they would be content with a majority requirement and<br>
> >>>>> enshrining the status quo consensus rule in the bylaws).<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> One of the issues we have with the GAC is that unlike<br>
> the other<br>
> >>>>> SO/ACs it is uniquely non-transparent. That means that<br>
> the voices<br>
> >>>>> in our discussion that are the most frequent can be<br>
> thought to<br>
> >>>>> represent the GAC majority. Perhaps they are. Yet every<br>
> time some<br>
> >>>>> of the less frequent voices from GAC speak in this forum<br>
> they seem<br>
> >>>>> much less strident and committed than do the more frequent<br>
> >>>>> participants<br>
> >> in our discussion.<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> I fear that the result of this is that we are<br>
> misperceiving the<br>
> >>>>> GAC's true intentions, or more accurately, misperceiving<br>
> the actual<br>
> >>>>> split of opinion within the GAC. To be honest, if, in<br>
> fact, it<br>
> >>>>> were the case that every country in the world save my<br>
> own were<br>
> >>>>> supporting Rec 11, I would be more inclined to relinquish my<br>
> >>>>> objection. But my strong suspicion is that this is not<br>
> the case.<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> Put another way, some have recently said we are<br>
> "disrespecting" the<br>
> >>>>> GAC or ignoring its wishes. But, as of now its wishes are<br>
> >>>>> radically unclear -- all it says is "we have not reached<br>
> >>>>> consensus." In the interests of clarifying the nature<br>
> of that lack<br>
> >>>>> of consensus, would the GAC be willing to disclose its<br>
> assessment<br>
> >>>>> of the relative support for Rec 11 and the relative<br>
> support for<br>
> > objections thereto?<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> Paul<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> Paul Rosenzweig<br>
> >>>>> <a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
</div></div>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>><br>
> >>>>> O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" value="+12025470660">+1 (202) 547-0660</a> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660><br>
> >>>>> M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" value="+12023299650">+1 (202) 329-9650</a> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650><br>
> >>>>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739><br>
<span>> >>>>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>
> >>>>> Link to my PGP Key<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
> >>>>> From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a>>]<br>
> >>>>> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 1:50 PM<br>
> >>>>> To: Malcolm Hutty <<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net">malcolm@linx.net</a><br>
</span><div><div class="h5">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net">malcolm@linx.net</a>>>; <a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>>;<br>
> >>>>> <a href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com">kdrazek@verisign.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com">kdrazek@verisign.com</a>><br>
> >>>>> Cc: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> I'm sorry, Malcolm, but this is a bit too "creative."<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> You are proposing to restructure the entire ICANN policy<br>
> process<br>
> >>>>> and to alter in a fairly fundamental way the<br>
> relationship between<br>
> >>>>> GNSO and<br>
> >> the GAC.<br>
> >>>>> There is a lot of merit in your idea as a general procedural<br>
> >>>>> reform, but the point of this exercise is to create<br>
> accountability<br>
> >>>>> mechanisms that substitute for the oversight of the USG,<br>
> not to<br>
> >>>>> alter the policy development process or to redesign all<br>
> of ICANN.<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> I think Ed Morris's message was a more positive<br>
> contribution that<br>
> >>>>> points the way toward a solution.<br>
> >>>>> The problem is not the 2/3 threshold in isolation, the<br>
> problem is<br>
> >>>>> that certain aspects of the CCWG 3rd draft, when looked<br>
> at in<br>
> >>>>> combination, are changing the role of the GAC in ways<br>
> greatly<br>
> >>>>> expand its power over the policy process, because they<br>
> retain and<br>
> >>>>> strengthen the privileges of its old role while also<br>
> changing its<br>
> >>>>> role by making it a part of the community mechanism.<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> I agree with Ed: if GAC is not part of the community<br>
> mechanism,<br>
> >>>>> and/or is not exempted from the same reviews as other<br>
> ACs and SOs,<br>
> >>>>> then the 2/3 threshold becomes much less of an issue.<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> I agree with Becky's more modest proposal: if GAC is<br>
> removed from<br>
> >>>>> the community mechanism appeals that pertain to whether<br>
> the board<br>
> >>>>> follows GAC advice, then there is less worry about<br>
> raising the<br>
> >>>>> threshold for board rejection of GAC advice.<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> I think we need to start from those propositions, not start<br>
> >>>>> redesigning the policy process.<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> --MM<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
> >>>>>> From: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>><br>
> >>>>>><br>
</div></div>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
<span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>>] On<br>
> >>>>>> Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty<br>
> >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 4:50 AM<br>
> >>>>>> To: <a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a><br>
</span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>>; <a href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com">kdrazek@verisign.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com">kdrazek@verisign.com</a>><br>
> >>>>>> Cc: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
<span>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>> On 29/01/2016 21:24, <a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a><br>
</span><span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>> wrote:<br>
> >>>>>>> it is a bit akward you would need to concede that you<br>
> imply that<br>
> >>>>>>> without the 2/3 the GNSO would be able to support Rec 11.<br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>> It gives an impression as if Rec 11 (without 2/3)<br>
> would contain<br>
> >>>>>>> anything "that would need to be accepted", when as we<br>
> all know<br>
> >>>>>>> Rec<br>
> >>>>>>> 11 (without 2/3) corresponds to 100% of the GNSO<br>
> starting position.<br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>> So there would be any concession. No aspect "in need<br>
> to be accepted".<br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>> Just a 100% win-situation for the GNSO.<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>> On 29/01/2016 22:01, <a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a><br>
</span><div><div class="h5">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>> wrote:<br>
> >>>>>>> I feel that at this critical juncture we all have to<br>
> keep the<br>
> >>>>>>> whole picture in our heads, be creative (as Becky for<br>
> instance)<br>
> >>>>>>> and look for a solution which may be acceptable across the<br>
> >>>>>>> community<br>
> >> as a whole.<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> The 2/3 rule is evidently unacceptable to the GNSO.<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> Without that rule, Rec.11 would (it seems) be<br>
> acceptable to them.<br>
> >>>>>> Jorge says "But this is their starting position, it<br>
> would mean a<br>
> >>>>>> 100% win-situation for the GNSO". I might observe that<br>
> the logic<br>
> >>>>>> of that seems to be that GNSO ought to have come to<br>
> CCWG with a<br>
> >>>>>> more extreme initial position, so that it could settle<br>
> on what it<br>
> >>>>>> really<br>
> >> wanted.<br>
> >>>>>> Perhaps it will learn to adapt its negotiating tactics.<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> However, I do agree with Jorge: we need to try to<br>
> respect the need<br>
> >>>>>> for all parties to be seen to gain improvements from<br>
> our changes.<br>
> >>>>>> I would therefore like us to take up his challenge to<br>
> "be creative"<br>
> >>>>>> in an attempt to find a solution.<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> Let us consider what the 2/3 rule attempts:<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> - from a government point of view, it provides an<br>
> assurance that<br>
> >>>>>> GAC advice will be given greater weight, affirming the<br>
> importance<br>
> >>>>>> of<br>
> >>>>> government input.<br>
> >>>>>> Such an assurance is necessary to them.<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> - from a GNSO point of view, it ensures that the Board will<br>
> >>>>>> automatically follow GAC advice (except in very unusual<br>
> >>>>>> circumstances) transforming ICANN into a body which is<br>
> led by<br>
> >>>>>> government policy. Such a transformation is<br>
> unacceptable to them.<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> With GNSO opposition, I believe we must accept that the<br>
> 2/3 rule<br>
> >>>>>> is dead. But taking up Jorge's challenge, we must<br>
> replace it not<br>
> >>>>>> with nothing, but with something creative that would<br>
> offer in its<br>
> >>>>>> place the assurance to governments the 2/3 rule seeks<br>
> to achieve,<br>
> >>>>>> without creating the transformation that the GNSO opposes.<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> I think it would be useful if people come forward with<br>
> ideas for<br>
> >>>>>> strengthening the input of governments without<br>
> overbalancing the<br>
> >>>>>> decision-making process as the 2/3 rule does.<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> I would therefore like to make the following suggestion<br>
> of my own:<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> * Remove the 2/3 rule; and<br>
> >>>>>> * Provide that when providing advice on GNSO policy,<br>
> GAC advice is<br>
> >>>>>> given directly to the GNSO (during the PDP) instead of<br>
> to the<br>
> >>>>>> Board, (after the community consensus policy is<br>
> finalised and<br>
> >>>>>> ready to be<br>
> >>>>> ratified).<br>
> >>>>>> Require that the GNSO consider any such GAC advice<br>
> before adopting<br>
> >>>>>> a PDP policy. (This is conceptual: lawyers can wordsmith).<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> The advantages of this proposal, as I see them, are as<br>
> follows:<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> - By accepting GAC advice into an earlier stage of the<br>
> process, it<br>
> >>>>>> will be possible to incorporate it into the design of<br>
> the policy,<br>
> >>>>>> rather than tacking it on as an adjunct. GAC advice<br>
> will therefore<br>
> >>>>>> be more effective and the ultimate outcome more likely<br>
> to reflect<br>
> >>>>>> GAC<br>
> >>>>> expectations than at present.<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> - By incorporating the fruits of GAC advice into the<br>
> community<br>
> >>>>>> proposal, it will also benefit from the rule that the<br>
> Board is<br>
> >>>>>> expected to accept GNSO community consensus policy<br>
> proposals, and<br>
> >>>>>> can only reject them by<br>
> >>>>>> 2/3 supermajority.<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> - By including the GAC in the policy-development process we<br>
> >>>>>> strengthen the GAC's role as a part of our community,<br>
> reducing the<br>
> >> "them and us"<br>
> >>>>>> tensions and helping to ensure that GAC concerns are<br>
> given full<br>
> >>>>>> respect at every level of the organisation.<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> Most importantly, this suggestions aims to strengthen<br>
> the GAC's<br>
> >>>>>> role in a manner that also strengthens the<br>
> multi-stakeholder<br>
> >>>>>> policy development process, rather than standing in<br>
> tension with<br>
> >>>>>> it. It can therefore be seen not as a zero-sum<br>
> compromise but a<br>
> >>>>>> true win-win<br>
> >>>>> solution.<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> I look forward to your thoughts,<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> Malcolm.<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> --<br>
> >>>>>> Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523<br>
</div></div>> <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523> Head of Public<br>
<span>> >>>>>> Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London<br>
> Internet<br>
> >>>>>> Exchange | <a href="http://publicaffairs.linx.net/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://publicaffairs.linx.net/</a><br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> London Internet Exchange Ltd<br>
> >>>>>> Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> Company Registered in England No. 3137929<br>
> >>>>>> Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
> >>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> Accountability-Cross-<br>
</span>> >>>>>> <a href="mailto:Community@icann.org">Community@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Community@icann.org">Community@icann.org</a>><br>
<span>> >>>>>><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communi" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communi</a><br>
> >>>>>> t<br>
> >>>>>> y<br>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
> >>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> >>>>> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
</span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><br>
<span>> >>>>><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit</a><br>
> >>>>> y<br>
> >>>> _______________________________________________<br>
> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> >>>> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
</span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><br>
<span>> >>>><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
> ><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
</span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><br>
<span>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
</span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><br>
<span>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</span>---<br>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>