[CCWG-ACCT] revised text for Stress Test 18

Fri Jul 31 14:03:31 UTC 2015

Dear all

I feel both statements perfectly complement each other: i. e. from the start the rule was of consensus and in 2011 the modality traditionally pursued was specified in our OP.

Perhaps I left that aspect too open but happily Suzanne (no newcomer either 😉), has rightly closed the gap.

regards

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

> Am 31.07.2015 um 15:06 schrieb Suzanne Radell <SRadell at ntia.doc.gov>:
> 
> Hi all, and while not intending to disagree with Jorge, as one of the GAC's "old timers" (first meeting was October 2003), I can confirm that the long tradition in the GAC was in fact consensus.  And the fact that it had been the normal practice for such a long time is one (just one, the others were the ATRT recommendations and the need for a definition in the new gTLD applicant guidebook) reason the GAC was willing and able to confirm the UN definition as the basis for policy development in 2011.  Cheers, Suz
> 
> Suzanne Murray Radell
> Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA
> sradell at ntia.doc.gov
> 202-482-3167
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 2:58 PM
> To: sdelbianco at netchoice.org
> Cc: acct-staff at icann.org; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] revised text for Stress Test 18
> 
> Dear all
> 
> If my recollection is right consensus within GAC was only defined in 2011.
> 
> So perhaps qualifying it as "strong" consensus and quoting part of the definition adopted only in 2011 is not entirely accurate.
> 
> We should probably stick to the exact facts. Also -as is done- that GAC is still trying to reach common ground on this topic.
> 
> regards
> 
> Jorge
> 
> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
> 
> Am 30.07.2015 um 20:52 schrieb Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>>:
> 
> Updated per discussion we just had on the CCWG call:
> Note that the proposed Bylaws change for Stress Test 18 does not interfere with the GAC's method of decision-making.  If the GAC decided to adopt advice by majority voting or methods other than today's consensus process, ICANN would still be obligated to give GAC advice due consideration: "advice shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies."
> Moreover, ICANN would still have to explain why GAC advice was not followed:  "In the event that the ICANN 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 only effect of this Bylaws change is to limit the kind of advice where ICANN is obligated to "try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution".  That delicate and sometimes difficult consultation requirement would only apply for GAC advice that was approved by consensus.
> From the beginning of ICANN through the present, the GAC has used a strong consensus rule for its decisions, "consensus is understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection." The proposed bylaws change recognizes that GAC may wish to consider, if necessary, amending its consensus rule to something less than "in the absence of any formal objection" while still requiring ICANN to try "to find a mutually acceptable solution."
> NTIA gave specific requirements for this transition, including advice that Stress Test 18 is a direct test of the requirement to avoid significant expansion of the role of governments in ICANN decision-making. The proposed Bylaws change is therefore an important part of the community's proposal.
> It is noted that GAC Representatives are continuing to discuss the proposal.
> 
> 
> 
> From: Steve DelBianco
> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 11:25 AM
> To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>"
> Cc: ACCT-Staff
> Subject: revised text for Stress Test 18
> 
> Per this morning's CCWG call, I drafted 2 paragraphs for ST 18 (see yellow text attached and below).
> 
> First is to remind GAC that they can define consensus.
> Second is to note dissent from 3 GAC reps and that GAC is still discussing.
> 
> Note that the proposed Bylaws change for Stress Test 18 does not interfere with the GAC's method of decision-making.  If the GAC decided to adopt advice by majority voting or methods other than today's consensus process, ICANN would still be obligated to give GAC advice due consideration: "advice shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies."
> Moreover, ICANN would still have to explain why GAC advice was not followed:  "In the event that the ICANN 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 only effect of this Bylaws change is to limit the kind of advice where ICANN is obligated to "try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution".  That delicate and sometimes difficult consultation requirement would only apply for GAC advice that was approved by consensus.
> From the beginning of ICANN through the present, the GAC has used a strong consensus rule for its decisions, "consensus is understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection." The proposed bylaws change recognizes that GAC may amend its consensus rule to something less than "in the absence of any formal objection" while still requiring ICANN to try "to find a mutually acceptable solution."
> NTIA gave specific requirements for this transition, including advice that Stress Test 18 is a direct test of the requirement to avoid significant expansion of the role of governments in ICANN decision-making. The proposed Bylaws change is therefore an important part of the community's proposal.
> It is noted that GAC Representatives from Argentina, Brazil, and France do not support the proposed Bylaws change, and the GAC is continuing to discuss the proposal.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community