I agree with Milton.<div><br></div><div>I think it would be prudent to offer a series of "option packages" and take a "binary vote" on objection to each of them.</div><div><br></div><div>I think the results could help illuminate our path forward, at the very least.</div><div><br></div><div>There are a few clear option packages that have emerged since the third draft, and perhaps a few recombination that might be useful to consider as well<span></span>. Building consensus is an iterative process.<font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"> I suggest we make use of our recent work rather than discarding it. </span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Greg</span></font></div><div><br>On Sunday, January 31, 2016, Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I agree with Avri. My reading is that there is currently not consensus on Rec 11.<br>
<br>
However, you may also want to make the options clearer. I see a lot of people saying, "I could accept Rec 11 if [this or that small change was made]. How does the polling account for that? If this is a binary vote, ONLY yes or no, I am pretty sure you won't get consensus on Rec 11.<br>
<br>
--MM<br>
<br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> You only list 2 designations: Full Consensus and Consensus. I am assuming it<br>
> is possible that you could get Less than Consensus (don't expect it or wish for<br>
> it, but it is possible). Should that be listed as a possibility as well?<br>
><br>
> avri<br>
><br>
> On 30-Jan-16 15:47, Mathieu Weill wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Dear Colleagues,<br>
> ><br>
> > Our usual approach is not achieving consensus on a way forward with<br>
> > Recommendation 11. So, as discussed at our last meeting, we will be<br>
> > conducting a poll of Members on this question at our next meeting.<br>
> ><br>
> > We will only be conducting a poll on third draft Recommendation 11,<br>
> > with the current minor amendments, given it is the text presented in<br>
> > the third draft and no alternative so far has demonstrated an ability<br>
> > to bring the different perspectives any closer.<br>
> ><br>
> > Exceptionally and unfortunately we will only be polling Members of the<br>
> > CCWG as defined and permitted in our charter.<br>
> ><br>
> > According to our Charter, the co-chairs shall be responsible for<br>
> > designating each position as having one of the following designations:<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees;<br>
> > identified by an absence of objection<br>
> ><br>
> > b) Consensus - a position where a small minority disagrees, but<br>
> > most agree<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Accordingly, determination of consensus will be based on the level of<br>
> > objection, not support.<br>
> ><br>
> > In the absence of Full Consensus, the co chairs will allow for the<br>
> > submission of minority viewpoint(s)which will be included in the<br>
> > Suppplemental report.<br>
> ><br>
> > In the absence of Consensus, we will need to assess what process the<br>
> > group will follow to rebuild consensus, or whether the absence of<br>
> > Consensus should be reported to the Chartering Organizations.<br>
> ><br>
> > The polling question will be:<br>
> ><br>
> > *Do you object to including Recommendation 11 as written below in the<br>
> > CCWG-Accountability's supplemental report to be submitted for<br>
> > Chartering Organisation approval?*<br>
> ><br>
> > Members unable to attend the meeting in-person may appoint an<br>
> > alternate. Alternates will be eligible if they are a current<br>
> > participant of the CCWG-Accountability. Alternates must be announced<br>
> > prior to the call to <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'acct-staff@icann.org')">acct-staff@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'acct-staff@icann.org')">acct-staff@icann.org</a>>.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > * *<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > *<br>
> ><br>
> > Recommendation 11 is designed to address Stress Test 18, which<br>
> > identified that GAC may change its method of decision-making to<br>
> > something other than the method it now uses: general agreement in the<br>
> > absence of any formal objections. Today's bylaws would still require<br>
> > the ICANN board to "try to find a mutually acceptable solution," even<br>
> > for GAC advice that was opposed by a significant number of<br>
> > governments. To address this Stress Test, Recommendation 11 currently<br>
> > reads:<br>
> ><br>
> > 1 The CCWG-Accountability recommends that the following changes<br>
> > be made to the ICANN Bylaws Article XI, Section 2:<br>
> ><br>
> > /j. The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy<br>
> > matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and<br>
> > adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to<br>
> > take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory<br>
> > Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the<br>
> > reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. *_Any Governmental<br>
> > Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory<br>
> > Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting<br>
> > decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection,<br>
> > may only be rejected by a vote of 2/3 of the Board_*, and the<br>
> > Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in<br>
> > good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually<br>
> > acceptable solution./<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > 2 Notes:<br>
> ><br>
> > The GAC has the autonomy to refine its operating procedures to specify<br>
> > how objections are raised and considered (for example, disallowing a<br>
> > single country to continue an objection on the same issue if no other<br>
> > countries will join in an objection). When transmitting consensus<br>
> > advice to the Board for which the GAC seeks to receive special<br>
> > consideration, the GAC has the obligation to confirm the lack of any<br>
> > formal objection.<br>
> ><br>
> > This recommendation is intended only to limit the conditions under<br>
> > which the ICANN board and GAC must "try to find a mutually acceptable<br>
> > solution", as required in ICANN's current bylaws. This recommendation<br>
> > shall not create any new obligations for ICANN board to consider, vote<br>
> > upon, or to implement GAC advice, relative to the bylaws in effect<br>
> > prior to the IANA transition.<br>
> ><br>
> > Insert this requirement for all ACs: A rationale must accompany any<br>
> > formal advice provided by an Advisory Committee to the ICANN Board.<br>
> > The Board shall have the responsibility to determine whether the<br>
> > rationale provided is adequate to enable determination of whether<br>
> > following that advice would be consistent with ICANN bylaws.<br>
> ><br>
> > To address the concern of GAC advice inconsistent with bylaws, add<br>
> > this clarification for legal counsel to consider when drafting bylaws<br>
> > language:<br>
> ><br>
> > ICANN cannot take action - based on advice or otherwise - that is<br>
> > inconsistent with Bylaws. While the GAC is not restricted as to the<br>
> > advice it can offer to ICANN, it is clear that ICANN may not take<br>
> > action that is inconsistent with its Bylaws. Any aggrieved party, or<br>
> > the empowered community, will have standing to bring an IRP to<br>
> > challenge whether a board action or inaction is inconsistent with its<br>
> > bylaws, even if the board acted on GAC advice.<br>
> ><br>
> > The language proposed in recommendations for ICANN Bylaw revisions are<br>
> > conceptual in nature at this stage. The CCWG-Accountability's external<br>
> > legal counsel and the ICANN legal team will draft final language for<br>
> > these revisions to the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws<br>
> > (Fundamental/Standard Bylaws).<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > As a reminder, Recommendation 11 obtained the following results in the<br>
> > public comment period on the third draft of the CCWG-Accountability:<br>
> ><br>
> > · Support 35<br>
> ><br>
> > · Against 19<br>
> ><br>
> > · Neutral 2<br>
> ><br>
> > · N/A 26<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Chartering Organization responses to the Third draft are summarized as:<br>
> ><br>
> > · GNSO : "Little support; strong opposition" to Rec 11 as<br>
> > written in Third Draft Proposal. "Most SG/Cs do not support" raising<br>
> > threshold for Board vote to reject GAC advice. Serious concern over<br>
> > lack of specificity in relation of requirements for GAC advice (such<br>
> > as provision of rationale) and possibility that this recommendation,<br>
> > if adopted, could unduly change nature of Board-GAC relationship<br>
> > and/or position of GAC vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs believe<br>
> > any recommendation should retain current flexibility in Bylaws where<br>
> > Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in order to reject<br>
> > GAC advice.<br>
> ><br>
> > · ccNSO: no specific comment<br>
> ><br>
> > · ASO: In general, we find the current text acceptable.<br>
> > Additionally, we would like to make the following remarks: We would<br>
> > support a text that clarifies today's practices and does not<br>
> > substantially change the GAC's role and how its advice is treated by<br>
> > the Board or substantially strengthen obligations for the Board to<br>
> > consider the GAC advice. We would not support a text that cannot be<br>
> > acceptable by the NTIA.<br>
> ><br>
> > · GAC: There is no consensus within the GAC so far to support<br>
> > or object to the text contained in Recommendation 11 of the 3rd Draft<br>
> > Proposal.<br>
> ><br>
> > · ALAC: supports the recommendation<br>
> ><br>
> > SSAC: no specific comment<br>
> ><br>
> > Best,<br>
> ><br>
> > Leon Thomas & Mathieu<br>
> ><br>
> > CCWG Accountability Co-chairs<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> > <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', '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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> ---<br>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
> <a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-<br>
> <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'Community@icann.org')">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>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', '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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</blockquote></div>