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

Tue Mar 3 14:35:07 UTC 2015

Dear Jordan,

could you clarify this sentence please:

"I know that the GAC could do this: if it changed the Operating Principle
47 to allow advice by majority vote, this would effectively increase
governmental influence in ICANN"

Best regards
Olga

2015-03-03 10:28 GMT-03:00 Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>:

> Thank you very much Julia and Rafael for these inputs. It is very helpful
> in further developing this proposal.
>
> I think there is an objective question we need an answer to, which is:
>
> *Which, if any, SOs and ACs have the ability to change their internal
> rules or procedures in a way that affects the whole ICANN community?*
>
> From where I sit, I know that the GAC could do this: if it changed the
> Operating Principle 47 to allow advice by majority vote, this would
> effectively increase governmental influence in ICANN and is solely a GAC
> decision.
>
> I do not know whether other ACs can do this, because I do not know whether
> the bylaws give a special privileged status to their advice similar to the
> status they give to GAC advice.
>
> I do not know whether other SOs can do this.
>
> I think in the ccNSO there is no advice provision, and in terms of
> policymaking, all the rules are set out in the PDP which is part of the
> bylaws. So any change for ccNSO influence is a bylaws change, as far as I
> know.
>
> If we have a clearer position of this, it would be helpful.
>
> *Are ICANN staff able to provide this information?*
>
> *Is any volunteer member of the WP able to provide this information?*
>
>
> I think if we know the answer, we will have a better basis to proceed.
>
> My initial thought is that if it is only GAC that has this ability, then
> that isn't something that should be maintained, because one of the key
> criteria for the IANA stewardship transition that NTIA has set out is that
> ICANN should not be subject to *governmental* control in future. An
> unlimited ability for governments to increase their influence in ICANN at
> their own discretion could conflict with that requirement, and mean the
> IANA stewardship transition fails.
>
> That's why resolving this in some way is part of WorkStream 1 - to be done
> to allow transition to proceed.
>
>
> Looking forward to more discussions!
>
> bests
> Jordan
>
>
> On 3 March 2015 at 21:36, Perez Galindo, Rafael <RPEREZGA at minetur.es>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear All
>>
>> Spain fully concurs with the views expressed by Denmark.
>>
>> While understanding the need to avoid capture, no proposal should preempt
>> the way in which a Committee makes decisions, which is what this idea would
>> mean in practice by compelling the GAC to stick to the consensus rule if it
>> wants the Board to duly take into account its advice.
>>
>> This proposal goes beyond the scope of this CCWG unless we engage in
>> discussion of procedures in all relevant SOs/ACs, as well.
>>
>> At any rate, such a proposal would strongly affect the GAC role and
>> should request explicit consent from the GAC prior to its inclusion in the
>> report.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Rafael Pérez Galindo
>> S. G. de Servicios de la Sociedad de la Información
>> Secretaría de Estado de Telecomunicaciones y para la Sociedad de la
>> Información
>> MINISTERIO DE INDUSTRIA, ENERGÍA y TURISMO
>>    c/ Capitán Haya, 41 Pta. 6ª Despacho 6.10 (28020 Madrid, España)
>>   +34 91 3461544
>>   +34 91 3461577
>>   rperezga at minetur.es
>>
>>
>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: wp1-bounces at icann.org [mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org] En nombre de
>> Julia Katja Wolman
>> Enviado el: martes, 03 de marzo de 2015 12:53
>> Para: wp1 at icann.org
>> Asunto: Re: [Party1] template - consensus defined for ICANN dealing with
>> GAC advice - draft1
>>
>> Dear Malcolm, colleagues,
>>
>> This is indeed an interesting discussion, which is likely to generate
>> some more comments from the government side.
>>
>> From our (DK) point of view we fully understand the need to have a stress
>> test for such a situation, including mitigating capture, but it is our
>> general view that any such proposal should not lower the current threshold
>> for the obligation of the ICANN Board to duly taking into account GAC
>> advice.
>>
>> With regard to Malcolm's suggestion below, we believe the text should not
>> be split into two. To clarify: In practice, the example you present below
>> where the other governments would be "indifferent" actually means that the
>> other governments actively chose not to actively support that specific
>> issue, for different reasons, and consequently there would be consensus on
>> advancing that specific issue as GAC advice. We would also like to
>> underline that reaching consensus among governments is not an easy task and
>> is a process that requires deliberations and compromises.  Therefore, we
>> would like keep the text from the existing consensus rules in the GAC's
>> Operating Principles.
>>
>> Moreover with regard to the template, there may be situations where the
>> GAC could not give consensus advice to the Board on a specific issue
>> because of opposition from one government but the general view could still
>> be in the benefit of the public. The opposite situation could be
>> interpreted so that a non-consensus advice always would be contrary to the
>> public benefit/interest.
>>
>> Consequently in the attached document we suggest to amend the following
>> paragraph:
>>
>>  "Primarily this purpose:
>> ·       Ensure decisions are for benefit of the public, not just for a
>> particular set of stakeholders"
>>
>> to
>>
>> "Primarily this purpose:
>> .     Avoid capture of a particular set of interests"
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Julia
>>
>>
>> Julia Katja Wolman
>>
>> DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
>>
>> Dahlerups Pakhus
>> Langelinie Allé 17
>> DK-2100 København Ø
>> Telephone: +45 3529 1000
>> Direct: +45 35291308
>> E-mail: jukacz at erst.dk
>> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk
>>
>> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
>> Fra: wp1-bounces at icann.org [mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org] På vegne af
>> Malcolm Hutty
>> Sendt: 2. marts 2015 12:38
>> Til: Kavouss Arasteh; Jordan Carter
>> Cc: wp1 at icann.org
>> Emne: Re: [Party1] template - consensus defined for ICANN dealing with
>> GAC advice - draft1
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01/03/2015 08:01, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> Absolutely, this is an important point. It is of course important that
>> the Board receive input from individual governments as well as other
>> stakeholders. The GAC has sometimes found it convenient to convey such
>> input through consensus documents such as the communique. When it does so
>> this essentially means "We have no consensus on X, but some of our members
>> would like to express their own view to you, and we are agreed that you
>> should be aware of their view".
>>
>> This is entirely appropriate. At the same time, it is important to be
>> able to distinguish between a view that has commanded a consensus in the
>> GAC and one which does not; the bylaws provides for special weight to be
>> given to GAC views, and that surely means the former rather than the
>> latter. This template simply aims to clarify that.
>>
>> As a small tweak, I wonder whether the template would be improved by
>> spltting the test into two heads ("general agreement" AND "the absence of
>> formal objection", as follows:
>>
>> "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 and the absence of any formal
>> objection.  [...continues unchanged]"
>>
>> The aim of this change is to address the position where one government
>> raises an issue of interest to them only, and other governments are
>> indifferent. It seems to me if only one government holds a position, and
>> the others state that they have no view, this doesn't really constitute a
>> consensus position, and ought not to be treated as such.
>>
>> Of course, governments that were largely disinterested would still be
>> free to give their positive support anyway, perhaps out of comity, and so
>> to form a consensus. This change would merely say that input would only be
>> treated as GAC consensus advice if they chose to do so.
>>
>> Malcolm.
>> --
>>             Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>>    Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog  London
>> Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
>>
>>                  London Internet Exchange Ltd
>>            21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
>>
>>          Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>>        Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150303/ccf4cb77/attachment-0001.html>