[Party1] template - consensus defined for ICANN dealing with GAC advice - draft1

[Robin Gross]

Jordan, Steve, this draft looks very good.  Thank you.

Best,
Robin


On Mar 1, 2015, at 8:20 AM, Steve DelBianco wrote:

> Kavouss — this draft would not diminish GAC’s ability to provide advice of any kind to ICANN.  
> 
> This draft clarifies that only consensus advice would merit the due deference already in the bylaws, using the definition of consensus that the GAC has now in its Operating Principles. 
> 
>> Amendment to ICANN Bylaws, with Article XI Section 2 clause 1j changed as follows. (Changes identified as follows: additions in bold and underlined, deletions struck through.)
>> 
>> j. The Consensus advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies, where consensus is understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection. In the event that the ‭ICANN‬ Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee consensus advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. 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.‬‬
>> 
> 
> 
> From: Kavouss Arasteh
> Date: Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 3:01 AM
> To: Jordan Carter
> Cc: "wp1 at icann.org"
> Subject: Re: [Party1] template - consensus defined for ICANN dealing with GAC advice - draft1
> 
> Dear Jordan
> Thank you very much for the draft.
> I understand from the draft that therte would be only "CONSENSUS ADVICE" from GAC to ICANN Board
> However, today, GAC could advise the ICANN Board with advice on which no consensus is reached and that is an aimportant elements on which the system is working.
> There are several examples of such kind of advice.
> Please kindly identify where such advice is referred to .
> In the darft the term" should " have been used which has optional connotation.
> May you kindly consider some more strongert terms
> Regards
> Kavouss  
> 
> 
> 2015-03-01 3:41 GMT+01:00 Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>:
>> Hi all
>> 
>> Attached is the second template I was drafting, trying to explain how the ICANN bylaws could define the level of consensus at which ICANN must take "due consideration" of GAC advice.
>> 
>> Please note that there will be sensitivities with this especially with the interaction with GAC decision making. I have tried to be very clear that this has no impact on GAC's decision making. I apologise in advance if in drafting this I have accidentally caused any offence or difficulties for any part of the ICANN community.
>> 
>> ICANN Staff - could you post these on the Wiki and create a google doc for future editing as well?
>> 
>> I look forward to your comments and thoughts and improvements!
>> 
>> best,
>> Jordan
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jordan Carter
>> 
>> Chief Executive 
>> InternetNZ
>> 
>> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
>> jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>> Skype: jordancarter
>> 
>> A better world through a better Internet 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> WP1 mailing list
>> WP1 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150301/89a22e02/attachment-0001.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/wp1/attachments/20150301/89a22e02/signature-0001.asc>