<div dir="ltr">Wonderful, thanks Mathieu for kicking this off. If I can offer any help as rapporteur, let me know.<div><br></div><div>All - I think we should leave this discussion suspended while the direct discussions Mathieu has begun on the co-chairs' behalf plays out. Hope that's OK.</div><div><br></div><div>best</div><div>Jordan</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 6 March 2015 at 01:45, 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 bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Colleagues,<br>
<br>
Attached is the note I sent to Thomas Schneider, GAC Chair, as
discussed. <br>
<br>
<div>Le 05/03/2015 16:26,
<a href="mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch" target="_blank">Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch</a> a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Dear
all<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-US">i have taken note of the discussions in WP1 and
I agree that this is an important matter where we will have
to have a discussion in the GAC. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-US">So I am waiting for the co-chairs of the CCWG
to contact me with some clear issues/questions that they
would want us to discuss.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-US">And then we will come back with feedback from
the GAC as soon as possible.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-US">Best regards<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-US">Thomas<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif" lang="DE">Von:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif" lang="DE"> Kavouss Arasteh
[<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Donnerstag, 5. März 2015 11:27<br>
<b>An:</b> Jordan Carter; Schneider Thomas BAKOM; Olga
Cavalli; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Manal Ismail;
Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior;
<a href="mailto:Michael.Niebel@ec.europa.eu" target="_blank">Michael.Niebel@ec.europa.eu</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Mathieu Weill; <a href="mailto:wp1@icann.org" target="_blank">wp1@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [Party1] template - consensus defined
for ICANN dealing with GAC advice - draft1<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear All,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">As I mentioned before , we are now
discussing some very delecate issue.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">We need to seek views from GAC before
proceeding further<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kavouss <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2015-03-05 0:32 GMT+01:00 Jordan Carter
<<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>>:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Mathieu<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">To confirm we at WP1 today agreed
to halt any further consideration of this, pending
your consultation with the GAC.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">best<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888">Jordan<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 5 March 2015 at 00:27,
Mathieu Weill <<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>>
wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear colleagues,<br>
<br>
We are obviously on sensitive grounds here.
We are all well aware that to reach our
goal, to enhance Icann's accountability in
the context of a successful transition, we
need to ensure :<br>
- that we have consensus across all SO/ACs<br>
- that we ensure the absence of capture
within Icann. <br>
<br>
This discussion started from the stress test
which is precisely defined at ensuring that
Icann is not captured by governments or a
group of governments. The proposal being
currently discussed suggests that Icann
Bylaws incorporate a specific decision
making rule (consensus) for GAC Advice to
get special deferrence by the Board.
Feedback from some GAC members in the CCWG
tend to demonstrate that the proposal would
not get full consensus at this point.
<br>
<br>
We need to recognize that the proposal is
consistent with current practice of the GAC,
but also that this current practice has been
discussed in the past within the GAC, and
appears to be a point of discussion between
GAC members lately. Consequently, we as CCWG
run the risk of stepping into an internal
GAC discussion without properly
understanding the specific context.
<br>
<br>
The co-chairs will engage the GAC Chair,
Thomas Schneider, on the issue shortly, as
discussed earlier within the CCWG. before
doing that I would appreciate your insights
on some aspects of the current proposal :<br>
- would other definitions of decision
making, for example supermajority
requirements such as those existing for some
gNSO decisions, provide sufficient
guarantees against capture (2/3 ; 3/4; ...)
? In this case they could replace the
proposed definition of consensus ? <br>
- how does the current proposal (consensus
being defined as "no formal objection")
prevent from one single government
"capturing" GAC "special deferrence" advice
? Could that not be considered by some as
capture (within the GAC) by one government
over the "public policy" perspective that
the GAC brings into Icann. <br>
<br>
Thanks for your considered responses, and
for the very useful debate on this topic so
far.
<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Mathieu<br>
<br>
<br>
Le 04/03/2015 07:14, Jordan Carter a écrit :<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear all, dear
Olga, <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Apologies for
the delay in replying, but here we
go:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 3 March
2015 at 23:35, Olga Cavalli <<a href="mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com" target="_blank">olgacavalli@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear
Jordan, <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">could
you clarify this sentence
please:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">"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"</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In short:
if GAC can choose to decide
advice more easily, and ICANN
is obliged to duly take GAC
advice into account, then GAC
can choose to increase its
influence in ICANN. GAC should
not be able to choose to do
this on its own, is the
argument here.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here's the
long version:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">At the
present time GAC advice
triggers an obligation on
ICANN to duly take that advice
into account, as per the
bylaws:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Article
IX Section 2 Part 1</i><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333">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 </span>ICANN </i><i><span style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333">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. The
Governmental Advisory
Committee and the </span>ICANN </i><i><span style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#333333">Board
will then try, in good
faith and in a timely and
efficient manner, to find
a mutually acceptable
solution.</span> </i><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This
obligation to look at the
advice, and to try and find a
mutual solution, is what gives
GAC its influence in ICANN -
its advice cannot be ignored
by the Board.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The GAC in
its Operating Principles (#47)
specifies that advice will be
made by consensus.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">GAC can
change its operating
principles.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">If -
hypothetically - GAC did
change its operating
principles to allow it to give
advice to ICANN on a
non-consensus basis - perhaps
by voting - then it would be
_lowering the threshold_ at
which advice could be given.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The <b>current</b>
combination of ICANN having to
give due heed to GAC advice,
and the consensus nature of
that advice, is what gives the
GAC its
<b>current</b> level of
structural influence in ICANN.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">It seems to
me that<b> if the threshold
was lowered</b> for
establishing such advice, then
that influence would be
<b>increased</b>. Governments
would have more influence in
ICANN, because it would be
easier to give advice on more
topics without the onerous
requirement of consensus being
arrived at.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the
other direction, if the
threshold for advice was <b>made
higher</b> (e.g. if GAC -
hypothetically - changed its
operating principles so that
it could only offer consensus
advice after agreeing it was
consensus at three GAC
meetings in a row, with a
quorum of 100 governments
participating), then the level
of influence would be
<b>reduced</b>.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The logic
behind this proposed change to
the ICANN bylaws is that the
<b>current</b> level of GAC
advice in the ICANN
environment should be
maintained, and that any
changes to it would need to be
agreed not just by GAC (which
is the case today), but by the
whole community through a
change to the bylaws.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I apologise
that this is a long reply, but
I cannot answer clearly more
briefly.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jordan<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Best
regards</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Olga</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2015-03-03
10:28 GMT-03:00 Jordan
Carter <<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>>:
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank
you very much
Julia and Rafael
for these inputs.
It is very helpful
in further
developing this
proposal.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I
think there is
an objective
question we need
an answer to,
which is:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>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?</b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I
do not know
whether other
SOs can do
this. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">If
we have a
clearer position
of this, it
would be
helpful.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Are
ICANN staff
able to
provide this
information?</b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Is
any volunteer
member of the
WP able to
provide this
information?</b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I
think if we know
the answer, we
will have a
better basis to
proceed.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">That's
why resolving
this in some way
is part of
WorkStream 1 -
to be done to
allow transition
to proceed.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Looking
forward to more
discussions!<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">bests<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888">Jordan<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On
3 March 2015
at 21:36,
Perez Galindo,
Rafael <<a href="mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es" target="_blank">RPEREZGA@minetur.es</a>>
wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear
All<br>
<br>
Spain fully
concurs with
the views
expressed by
Denmark.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
This proposal
goes beyond
the scope of
this CCWG
unless we
engage in
discussion of
procedures in
all relevant
SOs/ACs, as
well.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
<br>
Rafael Pérez
Galindo<br>
S. G. de
Servicios de
la Sociedad de
la Información<br>
Secretaría de
Estado de
Telecomunicaciones
y para la
Sociedad de la
Información<br>
MINISTERIO DE
INDUSTRIA,
ENERGÍA y
TURISMO<br>
c/ Capitán
Haya, 41 Pta.
6ª Despacho
6.10 (28020
Madrid,
España)<br>
<span style="font-family:Symbol">'</span>
<a href="tel:%2B34%2091%203461544" target="_blank">
+34 91 3461544</a><br>
<span style="font-family:Symbol">Ê</span>
<a href="tel:%2B34%2091%203461577" target="_blank">
+34 91 3461577</a><br>
<a href="mailto:rperezga@minetur.es" target="_blank">rperezga@minetur.es</a><br>
<br>
<br>
-----Mensaje
original-----<br>
De: <a href="mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">wp1-bounces@icann.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">wp1-bounces@icann.org</a>]
En nombre de
Julia Katja
Wolman<br>
Enviado el:
martes, 03 de
marzo de 2015
12:53<br>
Para: <a href="mailto:wp1@icann.org" target="_blank">wp1@icann.org</a><br>
Asunto: Re:
[Party1]
template -
consensus
defined for
ICANN dealing
with GAC
advice -
draft1<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Dear Malcolm,
colleagues,<br>
<br>
This is indeed
an interesting
discussion,
which is
likely to
generate some
more comments
from the
government
side.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Consequently
in the
attached
document we
suggest to
amend the
following
paragraph:<br>
<br>
"Primarily
this purpose:<br>
· Ensure
decisions are
for benefit of
the public,
not just for a
particular set
of
stakeholders"<br>
<br>
to<br>
<br>
"Primarily
this purpose:<br>
. Avoid
capture of a
particular set
of interests"<br>
<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Julia<br>
<br>
<br>
Julia Katja
Wolman<br>
<br>
DANISH
BUSINESS
AUTHORITY<br>
<br>
Dahlerups
Pakhus<br>
Langelinie
Allé 17<br>
DK-2100
København Ø<br>
Telephone: <a href="tel:%2B45%203529%201000" target="_blank">+45
3529 1000</a><br>
Direct: <a href="tel:%2B45%2035291308" target="_blank">+45 35291308</a><br>
E-mail: <a href="mailto:jukacz@erst.dk" target="_blank">jukacz@erst.dk</a><br>
<a href="http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk" target="_blank">www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk</a><br>
<br>
MINISTRY FOR
BUSINESS AND
GROWTH<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Oprindelig
meddelelse-----<br>
Fra: <a href="mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">wp1-bounces@icann.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">wp1-bounces@icann.org</a>]
På vegne af
Malcolm Hutty<br>
Sendt: 2.
marts 2015
12:38<br>
Til: Kavouss
Arasteh;
Jordan Carter<br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:wp1@icann.org" target="_blank">wp1@icann.org</a><br>
Emne: Re:
[Party1]
template -
consensus
defined for
ICANN dealing
with GAC
advice -
draft1<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 01/03/2015
08:01, Kavouss
Arasteh wrote:<br>
> I
understand
from the draft
that therte
would be only
"CONSENSUS
ADVICE"<br>
> from GAC
to ICANN Board<br>
> However,
today, GAC
could advise
the ICANN
Board with
advice on
which<br>
> no
consensus is
reached and
that is an
aimportant
elements on
which<br>
> the
system is
working.<br>
> There are
several
examples of
such kind of
advice.<br>
<br>
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".<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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:<br>
<br>
"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]"<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Malcolm.<br>
--<br>
Malcolm Hutty
| tel: <a href="tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523" target="_blank">
+44 20 7645
3523</a><br>
Head of
Public Affairs
| Read the
LINX Public
Affairs blog
London
Internet
Exchange |
<a href="http://publicaffairs.linx.net/" target="_blank">http://publicaffairs.linx.net/</a><br>
<br>
London
Internet
Exchange Ltd<br>
21-27 St
Thomas Street,
London SE1 9RY<br>
<br>
Company
Registered in
England No.
3137929<br>
Trinity
Court, Trinity
Street,
Peterborough
PE1 1DA<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
WP1 mailing
list<br>
<a href="mailto:WP1@icann.org" target="_blank">WP1@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
WP1 mailing
list<br>
<a href="mailto:WP1@icann.org" target="_blank">WP1@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear="all">
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">--
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Jordan Carter<br>
<br>
Chief
Executive <br>
<b>InternetNZ</b><br>
<br>
<a href="tel:04%20495%202118" target="_blank">04 495 2118</a> (office) | <a href="tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649" target="_blank">
+64 21 442 649</a>
(mob)<br>
<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>
<br>
Skype:
jordancarter<br>
<br>
<i>A better
world through
a better
Internet </i><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
WP1 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:WP1@icann.org" target="_blank">WP1@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear="all">
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Jordan
Carter<br>
<br>
Chief Executive <br>
<b>InternetNZ</b><br>
<br>
<a href="tel:04%20495%202118" target="_blank">04 495 2118</a> (office) | <a href="tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649" target="_blank">
+64 21 442 649</a> (mob)<br>
<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>
<br>
Skype: jordancarter<br>
<br>
<i>A better world through
a better Internet </i><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>WP1 mailing list<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:WP1@icann.org" target="_blank">WP1@icann.org</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<pre><span style="color:#888888">-- <u></u><u></u></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:#888888">*****************************<u></u><u></u></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:#888888">Mathieu WEILL<u></u><u></u></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:#888888">AFNIC - directeur général<u></u><u></u></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:#888888">Tél: <a href="tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006" target="_blank">+33 1 39 30 83 06</a><u></u><u></u></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:#888888"><a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a><u></u><u></u></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:#888888">Twitter : @mathieuweill<u></u><u></u></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:#888888">*****************************<u></u><u></u></span></pre>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
WP1 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:WP1@icann.org" target="_blank">WP1@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear="all">
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Jordan Carter<br>
<br>
Chief Executive <br>
<b>InternetNZ</b><br>
<br>
<a href="tel:04%20495%202118" value="+6444952118" target="_blank">04 495 2118</a> (office) | <a href="tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649" target="_blank">+64 21 442 649</a> (mob)<br>
<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>
<br>
Skype: jordancarter<br>
<br>
<i>A better world through a better
Internet </i><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
WP1 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:WP1@icann.org" target="_blank">WP1@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><u></u></font></span></p><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></blockquote><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: <a href="tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006" value="+33139308306" target="_blank">+33 1 39 30 83 06</a>
<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
</pre>
</font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br><br>04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)<br><a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<br><br><i>A better world through a better Internet </i><br><br></div></div></div></div>
</div>