<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Dear Co-Chairs,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I have to say that I do not agree entirely with your reading of the charter reflected in the following statement:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:22.3pt;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;margin-left:0cm;font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span lang="EN-CA">According to our Charter, the co-chairs shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:22.3pt;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;margin-left:72pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:22.3pt;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;margin-left:36pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><u></u><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family:Cambria,serif;color:black">a)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></span><u></u><span lang="EN-CA" style="color:black">Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection</span><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family:Cambria,serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:22.3pt;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;margin-left:36pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><u></u><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family:Cambria,serif;color:black">b)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></span><u></u><span lang="EN-CA" style="color:black">Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree</span><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family:Cambria,serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)"><span lang="EN-CA">Accordingly, </span><span lang="EN-CA">determination of consensus will be based on the level of objection, not support.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)"><span lang="EN-CA"><br></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px;font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Specifically, the above appears to be correct for determining Full Consensus (distinguished by "an absence of objection"). However, the above appears to be incorrect for determining Consensus, which requires that "most agree," in addition to requiring that only "a small minority disagrees." In other words, a finding of "Consensus" requires both a minimum level of <u>support</u> ("most agree") and a maximum level of <u>objection</u> (only "a small minority disagrees").</span><br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px;font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px;font-family:verdana,sans-serif">On this basis, if there are any objections, the responses of "most" members must indicate agreement, rather than a mere lack of objection, to support a finding of Consensus. Abstentions, no-shows, and "neither support nor object" responses would not count toward Consensus.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px;font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px;font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I am hopeful that we could still make progress toward consensus in the next 24 hours such that a "consensus call" is unnecessary. Nonetheless, if it comes to a poll, I hope that you will adjust your methodology accordingly.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px;font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px;font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Finally, I will reiterate my suggestion that, if a poll is conducted, it also tests the level of support and objection for the "option packages" that have emerged since the Third Draft Report was published over two months ago.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px;font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px;font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Best regards,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px;font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px;font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</span></p><div><br></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br></p></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Mathieu Weill <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="FR" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">Dear Colleagues,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">Our usual approach is not achieving consensus on a way forward with Recommendation 11. So, as discussed at our last meeting, we will be conducting a poll of Members on this question at our next meeting.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">We will only be conducting a poll on third draft Recommendation 11, with the current minor amendments, given it is the text presented in the third draft and no alternative so far has demonstrated an ability to bring the different perspectives any closer. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">Exceptionally and unfortunately we will only be polling Members of the CCWG as defined and permitted in our charter.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:22.3pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-CA">According to our Charter, the co-chairs shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:22.3pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:72.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:22.3pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><u></u><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family:"Cambria","serif";color:black"><span>a)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span lang="EN-CA" style="color:black">Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection</span><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family:"Cambria","serif";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:22.3pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none"><u></u><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family:"Cambria","serif";color:black"><span>b)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span lang="EN-CA" style="color:black">Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree</span><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family:"Cambria","serif";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">Accordingly, </span><span lang="EN-CA">determination of consensus will be based on the level of objection, not support.</span><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">In the absence of Full Consensus, the co chairs will allow for the submission of minority viewpoint(s)which will be included in the Suppplemental report. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">In the absence of Consensus, we will need to assess what process the group will follow to rebuild consensus, or whether the absence of Consensus should be reported to the Chartering Organizations. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">The polling question will be:<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><b><span lang="EN-CA">Do you object to including Recommendation 11 as written below in the CCWG-Accountability’s supplemental report to be submitted for Chartering Organisation approval?<u></u><u></u></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">Members unable to attend the meeting in-person may appoint an alternate. Alternates will be eligible if they are a current participant of the CCWG-Accountability. Alternates must be announced prior to the call to <a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org" target="_blank">acct-staff@icann.org</a>.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"> * *<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"> *<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">Recommendation 11 is designed to address Stress Test 18, which identified that GAC may change its method of decision-making to something other than the method it now uses: general agreement in the absence of any formal objections. Today’s bylaws would still require the ICANN board to “try to find a mutually acceptable solution,” even for GAC advice that was opposed by a significant number of governments. To address this Stress Test, Recommendation 11 currently reads:<u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="background:#d9d9d9"><u></u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:8.0pt"><span>1<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The CCWG-Accountability recommends that the following changes be made to the ICANN Bylaws Article XI, Section 2:<u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin-left:36.0pt;background:#d9d9d9"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">j. The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. <b><u>Any Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of 2/3 of the Board</u></b>, and the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.<u></u><u></u></span></i></p><p style="margin-left:36.0pt;background:#d9d9d9"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p style="background:#d9d9d9"><u></u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:8.0pt"><span>2<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Notes: <u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin-left:0cm;text-indent:0cm;background:#d9d9d9"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The GAC has the autonomy to refine its operating procedures to specify how objections are raised and considered (for example, disallowing a single country to continue an objection on the same issue if no other countries will join in an objection). When transmitting consensus advice to the Board for which the GAC seeks to receive special consideration, the GAC has the obligation to confirm the lack of any formal objection.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="background:#d9d9d9"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">This recommendation is intended only to limit the conditions under which the ICANN board and GAC must “try to find a mutually acceptable solution”, as required in ICANN’s current bylaws. This recommendation shall not create any new obligations for ICANN board to consider, vote upon, or to implement GAC advice, relative to the bylaws in effect prior to the IANA transition.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="background:#d9d9d9"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Insert this requirement for all ACs: A rationale must accompany any formal advice provided by an Advisory Committee to the ICANN Board. The Board shall have the responsibility to determine whether the rationale provided is adequate to enable determination of whether following that advice would be consistent with ICANN bylaws.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="background:#d9d9d9"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">To address the concern of GAC advice inconsistent with bylaws, add this clarification for legal counsel to consider when drafting bylaws language: <u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin-left:36.0pt;background:#d9d9d9"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">ICANN cannot take action - based on advice or otherwise – that is inconsistent with Bylaws. While the GAC is not restricted as to the advice it can offer to ICANN, it is clear that ICANN may not take action that is inconsistent with its Bylaws. Any aggrieved party, or the empowered community, will have standing to bring an IRP to challenge whether a board action or inaction is inconsistent with its bylaws, even if the board acted on GAC advice.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="background:#d9d9d9"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The language proposed in recommendations for ICANN Bylaw revisions are conceptual in nature at this stage. The CCWG-Accountability’s external legal counsel and the ICANN legal team will draft final language for these revisions to the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws (Fundamental/Standard Bylaws).<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">As a reminder, Recommendation 11 obtained the following results in the public comment period on the third draft of the CCWG-Accountability: <u></u><u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span lang="EN-CA">Support 35<u></u><u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span lang="EN-CA">Against 19<u></u><u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span lang="EN-CA">Neutral 2<u></u><u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span lang="EN-CA">N/A 26<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">Chartering Organization responses to the Third draft are summarized as:<u></u><u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span lang="EN-CA">GNSO : “Little support; strong opposition” to Rec 11 as written in Third Draft Proposal. “Most SG/Cs do not support” raising threshold for Board vote to reject GAC advice. Serious concern over lack of specificity in relation of requirements for GAC advice (such as provision of rationale) and possibility that this recommendation, if adopted, could unduly change nature of Board-GAC relationship and/or position of GAC vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs believe any recommendation should retain current flexibility in Bylaws where Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in order to reject GAC advice. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span lang="EN-CA">ccNSO: no specific comment<u></u><u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span lang="EN-CA">ASO: In general, we find the current text acceptable. Additionally, we would like to make the following remarks: We would support a text that clarifies today’s practices and does not substantially change the GAC's role and how its advice is treated by the Board or substantially strengthen obligations for the Board to consider the GAC advice. We would not support a text that cannot be acceptable by the NTIA.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span lang="EN-CA">GAC: There is no consensus within the GAC so far to support or object to the text contained in Recommendation 11 of the 3rd Draft Proposal.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span lang="EN-CA">ALAC: supports the recommendation<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">SSAC: no specific comment<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">Best, <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">Leon Thomas & Mathieu<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">CCWG Accountability Co-chairs</span><u></u><u></u></p></div></div><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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>