[ST-WP] Updated document on Applying Stress Tests

[Olga Cavalli]

Hi,
in relation with comments related with GAC:

   - The GAC Chair is part of the Board but has a non voting seat


   - There is no participation of the GAC in Nomcom for the moment, and
   there is no decision on how this will be in the future
   -
   - GAC is an Advisory Committee to the ICANN board

Carlos, please clarify your question: "The GAC has in general the same
weight as all SO/ACs, or doesn’t it?"

Best regards
Olga

2015-02-17 4:23 GMT-03:00 Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <crg at isoc-cr.org>:

> *Re: #18 Stress of GAC Consensus advice*
>
> Dear Steve,
>
> With the hindsight of the call, your example reminds me of the .wine and
> .vin case. so it goes beyond a theoretical test.
>
>
> a) I think the case you are discussing is a question of the different
> layers of representation (all under accountability of course)
>
>
>    - The GAC has representation at the Board level
>       - The GAC has more or less representation at the NomCom level,
>       depending on recent proposal
>       - The GAC has earlier engagement at the policy level and late
>       advice at the Board level
>       - The GAC has in general the same weight as all SO/ACs, or doesn’t
>       it?
>
> b) the we are talking about there internal rules
>
>
>    - Their bylaws about *consensus* decision making
>
>
>
> In the .wine and .vin case there was no consensus.
> I have problems in using such specific cases of stress cases under general
> “accountability” title and try to solve it just by changes in the bylaws. I
> think it needs a little bit more structural analysis *if all SO/ACs have
> the same weight (consensus based or not) at all levels,in all processes, at
> all times or not*. I f we just start limiting how to change internal
> issues in the GAC we might face larger inconsistencies further down the
> road.
>
>
> Carlos Raul Gutierrez
> GNSO Council
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
> wrote:
>
>   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 <http://www.netchoice.org/> and
> http://blog.netchoice.org
> +1.703.615.6206
>
>
>    <Applying Stress Tests [Draft v4].pdf><Applying Stress Tests [Draft
> v4].docx>_______________________________________________
> Ccwg-accountability4 mailing list
> Ccwg-accountability4 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150217/0ad7cb56/attachment.html>