<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"><base href="https://e-aj.my.com/"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><base href="https://e-aj.my.com/">> <span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; "> The normal deontology (love that phrase!)</span><div><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 15px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 15px;">I agree.</span></font></div><div><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 15px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 15px;">CW</span></font></div><div><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 15px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 15px;">PS:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><i>deontology</i>: The science of duty or moral obligation: ethics. OED, V. I, p. 647</span></font></div><div><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 15px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 15px;"><br></span></font><div><div>On 31 Jan 2016, at 17:04, Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Indeed … and that, of course, is also the point. The normal deontology (love that phrase!) of governments is far different from all the other stakeholders (or at least their representative organizations) in ICANN. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Cheers<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Paul<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div><div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Paul Rosenzweig<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; "><span style="color: rgb(5, 99, 193); ">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">O: +1 (202) 547-0660<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">M: +1 (202) 329-9650<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; text-align: justify; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; "><span style="color: rgb(5, 99, 193); ">Link to my PGP Key</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><a href="http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-decoration: none; "><image001.png></span></a><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div><div><div style="border-style: solid none none; border-top-width: 1pt; border-top-color: rgb(225, 225, 225); padding: 3pt 0in 0in; "><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><b><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">From:</span></b><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>CW Mail [mailto:mail@<a href="http://christopherwilkinson.eu" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">christopherwilkinson.eu</a>]<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><b>Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Sunday, January 31, 2016 10:11 AM<br><b>To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>><br><b>Cc:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11<o:p></o:p></span></div></div></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><o:p> </o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">Well, Paul, the normal déontology of public officials in an international context, would not give rise to the information that you are seeking.<o:p></o:p></div><div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">Except perhaps after a conclusion had been reached, if then.<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><o:p> </o:p></div></div><div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">CW<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><o:p> </o:p></div></div><div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><o:p> </o:p></div><div><div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">On 31 Jan 2016, at 02:54, Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></div></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><br><br><o:p></o:p></div><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt; "><div><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; margin-top: 0in; ">Which of course reverts to my original question: what are the governments saying and what is the nature and degree of their disagreements, if any.<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">--<br>Paul<br>Sent from myMail app for Android<o:p></o:p></p><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">Saturday, 30 January 2016, 04:31PM -06:00 from CW Mail <<a href="mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">mail@christopherwilkinson.eu</a>>:<br><br><br><o:p></o:p></div><blockquote style="border-style: none none none solid; border-left-width: 1pt; border-left-color: rgb(252, 44, 56); padding: 0in 0in 0in 8pt; margin-left: 7.5pt; margin-right: 0in; "><div id="style_14541931210000091640_BODY"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">I would expect most governments to make their comments in the GAC itself.<br>Only exceptionally to respond to public comments periods.<br><br>CW<br><br><br>On 30 Jan 2016, at 23:15, "Paul Rosenzweig" <<a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">> Sure Jorge<br>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>> I'll happily agree with you that everyone who spoke to the issue of the<br>> 2/3rd vote that was a government (as opposed to the rest of the community)<br>> supported it.<br>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>> In return, ought you not to acknowledge that the entire opposition to the<br>> full consensus/ST18 proposal is exactly 5 countries? Nobody outside the GAC<br>> affirmatively supports less than full consensus and many (most notably the<br>> gNSO) actively opposes it. Ought you not to acknowledge that the tiny<br>> minority of 5 dissenters is who is blocking consensus on that aspect of the<br>> issue?<br>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>> And, since we are asking questions -- why didn't the government of<br>> Switzerland submit comments?<br>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>> Paul<br>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>> Paul Rosenzweig<br>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<br>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<br>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<br>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>> Link to my PGP Key<br>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>[mailto:Jorge.Cancio@<a href="http://bakom.admin.ch" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">bakom.admin.ch</a>]<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 4:40 PM<br>> To:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>> Cc:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">egmorris1@toast.net</a>;<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=accountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@icann.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11<br>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>> Dear Paul<br>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>> As I said I cannot and would not dare to speak for the GAC.<br>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>> But in any group where expressing one's opinion is not compulsory, normally<br>> a majority does remain silent and those with a strong sentiment speak out,<br>> factually "representing" in some way the main currents of thought in such a<br>> group.<br>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>> I guess this happens all across the board and in all constituencies, as it<br>> happens in our CCWG, where some of us (to varying degrees) cope a lot of the<br>> conversations while the majority of the +150 (?) members and participants<br>> are normally silent.<br>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>> So, I guess that based on this "voluntary" principle the data you mention on<br>> the 2/3 element is significant, at least in showing that there seems not to<br>> be any government considering that threshold as something they should object<br>> (quite to the contrary it seems). And of the governments which participated<br>> there is quite an interesting variety in regional terms.<br>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>> best regards<br>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>> Jorge<br>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet<br>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> Am 30.01.2016 um 22:14 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig<br>> <<a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>:<br>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> Jorge<br>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> I took you up on the implicit challenge and have just spent an hour<br>> happily<br>>> reading all of the government comments on CCWG-A Third Draft. I may<br>> have<br>>> missed a comment, but I don't think so.<br>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> I can happily report the following to the community:<br>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> 15 governments commented on the Third Draft report. Of those 14<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> addressed Rec 11 and 7 also addressed Rec 1. One government (Italy)<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> addressed only Rec 2.<br>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> Of the 7 who addressed Rec 1: 4 governments supported GAC voting in<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> the EC (Brazil, Argentina, Japan, and NZ) though two (Japan and NZ)<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> expressed caution about this. Two governments said GAC should be<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> advisory only<br>>> (Ireland/Denmark) and one (UK) said that the decision should be up to<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> the GAC.<br>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> Of the 14 who addressed Rec 11:<br>>> -- All who spoke to the issue supported the 2/3rd vote<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> rejection rule. Some were silent<br>>> -- Eight governments supported the current full consensus rule<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> (Australia, NZ, UK, Japan, Sweden, Ireland, Canada, and Denmark); five<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> opposed it (Brazil, France, Argentina, Portugal, India); one (Norway)<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> noted lack of GAC consensus.<br>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> So my assessment is that a very small sample of 6 governments splits<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> 2-1 in favor of a GAC voting role in the EC and a somewhat larger<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> sample of 13 governments splits 8-5 in favor of ST18 and full consensus.<br>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> To be honest, I think that doesn't tell us much. There are 153<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> governments in the GAC. A sample of 10% probably says nothing about<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> sentiment in that body. Nonetheless the data speak for themselves at<br>> least as far as they go.<br>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> Paul<br>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> Paul Rosenzweig<br>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<br>>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<br>>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<br>>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>>> Link to my PGP Key<br>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> -----Original Message-----<br>>> From:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>[mailto:Jorge.Cancio@<a href="http://bakom.admin.ch" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">bakom.admin.ch</a>]<br>>> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 3:04 PM<br>>> To:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=egmorris1@toast.net" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">egmorris1@toast.net</a><br>>> Cc:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>;<br>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=accountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@icann.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11<br>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> Hi Ed<br>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> I don't know the numbers by heart, but I'll guess they are on the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> public comment sheet produced by staff (actually I just saw in their<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> ppt that out of 90 comments 17% come from govts).<br>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> But let's not go down that road: if we count who participates and<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> extend it to other constituencies we will also see the "same faces" all<br>> over again:<br>>> that is a consequence of the principle of voluntary participation.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> In the GAC this is "compensated" with our voluntary high consensus<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> threshold which requires to include any interested delegation into a<br>> consensus.<br>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> regards<br>>> Jorge<br>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet<br>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>> Am 30.01.2016 um 20:54 schrieb Edward Morris <<a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=egmorris1@toast.net" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">egmorris1@toast.net</a>>:<br>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>> Hi Jorge,<br>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>> Thanks for this.<br>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>> I believe the GAC has around 140 members, give or take a few. As<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>> you've<br>>> gone through all the public comments filed by governments would be so<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> kind as to us know how many governments actually filed public comments<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> and what percentage of GAC membership that represents?<br>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>> Thanks,<br>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>> Ed Morris<br>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>> Sent from my iPhone<br>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>> On 30 Jan 2016, at 19:46, <<a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>><br>>> <<a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>> wrote:<br>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>> Dear Paul<br>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>> I cannot speak for the GAC of course, but the last consensus input<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>> on<br>>> ST18 we had was the Dublin Communique.<br>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>> The subsequent Rec 11 did not satisfy some governments, as they<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>> basically<br>>> thought that it did not comply with the "autonomy in defining<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> consensus"-element agreed in Dublin.<br>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>> This may be checked with the comments filed in the third public<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>> comment<br>>> period on the third draft report by governments.<br>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>> I think I have gone through all public comments filed by governments<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>> and<br>>> I'm not aware of any position rejecting or objecting to Rec 11 because<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> it would consider that it went "too far" i.e. because they would<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>> actively disagree with the 2/3.<br>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>> Other colleagues may of course correct and/or complement me if I<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>> have<br>>> missed something.<br>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>> regards<br>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>> Jorge<br>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet<br>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> Am 30.01.2016 um 20:19 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig<br>>> <<a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>:<br>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> May I ask a question -- is the GAC willing to disclose the current<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> split of opinion within the GAC regarding Rec 11?<br>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> The last we heard was that the GAC had not reached consensus on the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> question. One infers (I think infer is actually too soft a word<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> but I use it to be certain I am not overstating the case) that some<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> members of the GAC support Rec 11 as written and some do not. One<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> also suspects (though here I am less certain) that some of the GAC<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> members oppose Rec 11 because it does not go far enough (they want<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> Rec 11 plus more (e.g. removal of the consensus<br>>>>>> language)) while others do not support Rec 11 because it goes too<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> far (they would be content with a majority requirement and<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> enshrining the status quo consensus rule in the bylaws).<br>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> One of the issues we have with the GAC is that unlike the other<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> SO/ACs it is uniquely non-transparent. That means that the voices<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> in our discussion that are the most frequent can be thought to<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> represent the GAC majority. Perhaps they are. Yet every time some<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> of the less frequent voices from GAC speak in this forum they seem<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> much less strident and committed than do the more frequent<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> participants<br>>> in our discussion.<br>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> I fear that the result of this is that we are misperceiving the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> GAC's true intentions, or more accurately, misperceiving the actual<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> split of opinion within the GAC. To be honest, if, in fact, it<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> were the case that every country in the world save my own were<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> supporting Rec 11, I would be more inclined to relinquish my<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> objection. But my strong suspicion is that this is not the case.<br>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> Put another way, some have recently said we are "disrespecting" the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> GAC or ignoring its wishes. But, as of now its wishes are<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> radically unclear -- all it says is "we have not reached<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> consensus." In the interests of clarifying the nature of that lack<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> of consensus, would the GAC be willing to disclose its assessment<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> of the relative support for Rec 11 and the relative support for<br>> objections thereto?<br>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> Paul<br>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> Paul Rosenzweig<br>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>>>>>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<br>>>>>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<br>>>>>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<br>>>>>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>>>>>> Link to my PGP Key<br>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> -----Original Message-----<br>>>>>> From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@<a href="http://gatech.edu" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">gatech.edu</a>]<br>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 1:50 PM<br>>>>>> To: Malcolm Hutty <<a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=malcolm@linx.net" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">malcolm@linx.net</a>>;<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>;<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=kdrazek@verisign.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">kdrazek@verisign.com</a><br>>>>>> Cc:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=accountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@icann.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>>>>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11<br>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> I'm sorry, Malcolm, but this is a bit too "creative."<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> You are proposing to restructure the entire ICANN policy process<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> and to alter in a fairly fundamental way the relationship between<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> GNSO and<br>>> the GAC.<br>>>>>> There is a lot of merit in your idea as a general procedural<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> reform, but the point of this exercise is to create accountability<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> mechanisms that substitute for the oversight of the USG, not to<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> alter the policy development process or to redesign all of ICANN.<br>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> I think Ed Morris's message was a more positive contribution that<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> points the way toward a solution.<br>>>>>> The problem is not the 2/3 threshold in isolation, the problem is<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> that certain aspects of the CCWG 3rd draft, when looked at in<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> combination, are changing the role of the GAC in ways greatly<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> expand its power over the policy process, because they retain and<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> strengthen the privileges of its old role while also changing its<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> role by making it a part of the community mechanism.<br>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> I agree with Ed: if GAC is not part of the community mechanism,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> and/or is not exempted from the same reviews as other ACs and SOs,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> then the 2/3 threshold becomes much less of an issue.<br>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> I agree with Becky's more modest proposal: if GAC is removed from<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> the community mechanism appeals that pertain to whether the board<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> follows GAC advice, then there is less worry about raising the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> threshold for board rejection of GAC advice.<br>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> I think we need to start from those propositions, not start<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> redesigning the policy process.<br>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>> --MM<br>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----<br>>>>>>> From:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=accountability%2dcross%2dcommunity%2dbounces@icann.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><br>>>>>>> [mailto:accountability-<a href="mailto:cross-community-bounces@icann.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] On<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty<br>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 4:50 AM<br>>>>>>> To:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>;<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=kdrazek@verisign.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">kdrazek@verisign.com</a><br>>>>>>> Cc:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=accountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@icann.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11<br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2016 21:24,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>wrote:<br>>>>>>>> it is a bit akward you would need to concede that you imply that<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>>> without the 2/3 the GNSO would be able to support Rec 11.<br>>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>>> It gives an impression as if Rec 11 (without 2/3) would contain<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>>> anything "that would need to be accepted", when as we all know<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>>> Rec<br>>>>>>>> 11 (without 2/3) corresponds to 100% of the GNSO starting position.<br>>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>>> So there would be any concession. No aspect "in need to be accepted".<br>>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>>> Just a 100% win-situation for the GNSO.<br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2016 22:01,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>wrote:<br>>>>>>>> I feel that at this critical juncture we all have to keep the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>>> whole picture in our heads, be creative (as Becky for instance)<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>>> and look for a solution which may be acceptable across the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>>> community<br>>> as a whole.<br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> The 2/3 rule is evidently unacceptable to the GNSO.<br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> Without that rule, Rec.11 would (it seems) be acceptable to them.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> Jorge says "But this is their starting position, it would mean a<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> 100% win-situation for the GNSO". I might observe that the logic<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> of that seems to be that GNSO ought to have come to CCWG with a<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> more extreme initial position, so that it could settle on what it<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> really<br>>> wanted.<br>>>>>>> Perhaps it will learn to adapt its negotiating tactics.<br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> However, I do agree with Jorge: we need to try to respect the need<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> for all parties to be seen to gain improvements from our changes.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> I would therefore like us to take up his challenge to "be creative"<br>>>>>>> in an attempt to find a solution.<br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> Let us consider what the 2/3 rule attempts:<br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> - from a government point of view, it provides an assurance that<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> GAC advice will be given greater weight, affirming the importance<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> of<br>>>>>> government input.<br>>>>>>> Such an assurance is necessary to them.<br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> - from a GNSO point of view, it ensures that the Board will<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> automatically follow GAC advice (except in very unusual<br>>>>>>> circumstances) transforming ICANN into a body which is led by<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> government policy. Such a transformation is unacceptable to them.<br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> With GNSO opposition, I believe we must accept that the 2/3 rule<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> is dead. But taking up Jorge's challenge, we must replace it not<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> with nothing, but with something creative that would offer in its<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> place the assurance to governments the 2/3 rule seeks to achieve,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> without creating the transformation that the GNSO opposes.<br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> I think it would be useful if people come forward with ideas for<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> strengthening the input of governments without overbalancing the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> decision-making process as the 2/3 rule does.<br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> I would therefore like to make the following suggestion of my own:<br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> * Remove the 2/3 rule; and<br>>>>>>> * Provide that when providing advice on GNSO policy, GAC advice is<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> given directly to the GNSO (during the PDP) instead of to the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> Board, (after the community consensus policy is finalised and<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> ready to be<br>>>>>> ratified).<br>>>>>>> Require that the GNSO consider any such GAC advice before adopting<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> a PDP policy. (This is conceptual: lawyers can wordsmith).<br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> The advantages of this proposal, as I see them, are as follows:<br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> - By accepting GAC advice into an earlier stage of the process, it<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> will be possible to incorporate it into the design of the policy,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> rather than tacking it on as an adjunct. GAC advice will therefore<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> be more effective and the ultimate outcome more likely to reflect<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> GAC<br>>>>>> expectations than at present.<br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> - By incorporating the fruits of GAC advice into the community<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> proposal, it will also benefit from the rule that the Board is<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> expected to accept GNSO community consensus policy proposals, and<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> can only reject them by<br>>>>>>> 2/3 supermajority.<br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> - By including the GAC in the policy-development process we<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> strengthen the GAC's role as a part of our community, reducing the<br>>> "them and us"<br>>>>>>> tensions and helping to ensure that GAC concerns are given full<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> respect at every level of the organisation.<br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> Most importantly, this suggestions aims to strengthen the GAC's<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> role in a manner that also strengthens the multi-stakeholder<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> policy development process, rather than standing in tension with<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> it. It can therefore be seen not as a zero-sum compromise but a<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> true win-win<br>>>>>> solution.<br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> I look forward to your thoughts,<br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> Malcolm.<br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> --<br>>>>>>> Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> Exchange |<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://publicaffairs.linx.net/" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://publicaffairs.linx.net/</a><br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> London Internet Exchange Ltd<br>>>>>>> Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ<br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> Company Registered in England No. 3137929<br>>>>>>> Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA<br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=Community@icann.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">Community@icann.org</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communi" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communi</a><br>>>>>>> t<br>>>>>>> y<br>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit</a><br>>>>>> y<br>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>>>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="x-msg://7/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><o:p></o:p></div></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><o:p> </o:p></div></div></blockquote></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><o:p></o:p></div></blockquote></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><o:p> </o:p></div></div></div>_______________________________________________<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" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>