[ST-WP] Updated document on Applying Stress Tests

[Robin Gross]

Since the views of one stakeholder are not supposed to be elevated above the other stakeholders in the multi-stakeholder model, I don't see why it would be a crisis if one stakeholder could not dominate the others.  That would mean multi-stakeholderism is working as designed.

Robin

On Feb 16, 2015, at 11:31 PM, Samantha Eisner wrote:

> Listening to our call today, I think we need to add in a stress test addressing the situation where a community veto results in the overturning of a board decision that is consistent with GAC advice (assuming consensus advice, etc.).  That has the potential for a crisis point in the organization that we need to consider.
> 
> From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
> Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 4:42 AM
> To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com>
> Cc: "ccwg-accountability4 at icann.org" <ccwg-accountability4 at icann.org>
> Subject: [ST-WP] Updated document on Applying Stress Tests
> 
> Cheryl — attached is an updated version 4 of our stress test document.   Give it a look and you may decide it’s worth circulating before our call Tuesday. 
> 
> First, I made the updates that came up during our working session Thursday morning in Singapore. 
> 
> Second, I added application of stress test #18 in Category IV (see page 3).   This is a stress test regarding GAC Advice:
>> 
>> 18. Governments in ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee (GAC) amend their operating procedures to change from consensus decisions to majority voting for advice to ICANN’s board. 
>> 
>> Consequence: Under current bylaws, ICANN must consider and respond to GAC advice, even if that advice were not supported by consensus. A majority of governments could thereby approve GAC advice that restricted free online expression, for example.
> 
>> Existing Accountability Measures:
>> Current ICANN Bylaws (Section XI) give due deference to  GAC advice, including a requirement to try and find “a mutually acceptable solution.”
>>  
>> This is required for any GAC advice, not just for GAC consensus advice.
>> 
>> Today, GAC adopts formal advice according to its Operating Principle 47: “consensus is understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection.”    But the GAC may at any time change its procedures to use majority voting instead of consensus.
> 
> 
>> CCWG Proposed Accountability Measures:
>> One proposed measure is to give the community standing to veto a board decision.  If ICANN board acquiesced to GAC advice that was not supported by GAC consensus, the community veto could enable reversal of that decision.
>> 
>> Another proposed measure is to amend ICANN bylaws (Section XI 1j) to give due deference only to GAC consensus advice, and add a definition of “consensus”.
>> 
>> The GAC could change its Operating Principle 47 to use majority voting for formal GAC advice, but ICANN bylaws would require due deference only to advice that had GAC consensus. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best,
> Steve
> —
> Steve DelBianco
> Executive Director
> NetChoice
> http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
> +1.703.615.6206
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-accountability4 mailing list
> Ccwg-accountability4 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability4/attachments/20150217/ce735462/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability4/attachments/20150217/ce735462/signature.asc>