[CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18

Thu Nov 26 06:00:55 UTC 2015

Dear all

Would you say that imposing consumer prices has no impact on the offerer?

Would you say that imposing that the Board could only consider PDP backed by unanimous support would have no impact on the corresponding SO?

I guess it must be something in the English language, which definitely escapes me, but when you have a supplier who only (or principally) supplies one single consumer, regulating how that consumer may receive your goods/services, implied regulating the supplier...

regards

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 26.11.2015 um 05:03 schrieb Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>:

hi Arun,

I think the crux of where we see this differently is here:

On 26 November 2015 at 16:58, Arun Mohan Sukumar <arun.sukumar at orfonline.org<mailto:arun.sukumar at orfonline.org>> wrote:
Jordan, perhaps I am looking at this with too critical an eye, but the note does not seem to have the benign effect of sharing the NTIA's view: let me highlight two separate but somewhat contradictory statements in this note:

"NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments."

This applies to what ICANN must do in response to GAC advice, as far as I can tell. The aim of ST18 is to prevent ICANN having to respond to advice in a manner that leads to the formal reconciliation attempt process, unless that advice comes from consensus.

That's what the stress test was developed to analyse and that is what the CCWG included in its second draft report, a way to resolve that problem.

Throughout we've been clear that it has *zero* impact on GAC decision-making per se. The quote you add below does deal with that, but it doesn't seem to me to be obvious that protecting ICANN from having to manage intergovernmental dispute has to be linked with how GAC makes decisions.

anyhow, will be interested to see the responses of others, including GACcers!

JTC

and elsewhere..

"But the right place to deal with that issue [of single-country veto] is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC. "

So on the one hand, NTIA feels the GAC's autonomy to define consensus must be limited (to shield the Board from a difficult position etc etc)  but on the other, the GAC is well-equipped internally to deal with the intractable veto concern? Why not let the GAC evaluate its impact of fractured advice on the Board - surely governments understand the negative consequences of engaging the Board in a push-and-pull exercise?

In any event, as I wrote previously, this is for GAC colleagues to discuss. The message, however, does not inspire confidence.

--
Head, Cyber Initiative
Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi
http://amsukumar.tumblr.com<http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/>
+91-9871943272<tel:%2B91-9871943272>

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:
hi Arun,

I think you are eliding two things in an unfortunate way - the GAC decision-making process, and the fact of the United States using its leverage in the transition discussion. The fact that NTIA has set out requirements for the transition to occur, and sharing its view about ST18's importance in validating one of those requirements, is not a commentary on decision-making in GAC.

Or am I missing something?

best
Jordan

On 26 November 2015 at 16:43, Arun Mohan Sukumar <arun.sukumar at orfonline.org<mailto:arun.sukumar at orfonline.org>> wrote:
Thank you for posting NTIA's comment on this, Suzanne.

It is for GAC colleagues in the CCWG to weigh in on Assistant Secretary Strickling's note. What concerns me is the NTIA's effort to intervene at this crucial stage in ST 18 discussions. Frankly, it defeats the spirit of compromise that the CCWG has been striving for on this issue. The NTIA suggests GAC should not be worried about a "single country veto", when it is exercising precisely that during this important exercise.

Apologies for what may sound like harsh words: the CCWG is well attuned to attempts by one powerful stakeholder to steer the debate, and has so far resisted/responded to them admirably. One hopes this will be no exception.

Best,
Arun

--
Head, Cyber Initiative
Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi
http://amsukumar.tumblr.com<http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/>
+91-9871943272<tel:%2B91-9871943272>

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Phil Buckingham <phil at dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil at dotadvice.co.uk>> wrote:
Hello Suzanne,

Thank you for the NTIA’s timely comments and suggestions.
Regards,
Phil

Phil Buckingham
CEO,Dot Advice Limited
Email:phil at dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:Email%3Aphil at dotadvice.co.uk>
Skype: philip.buckingham14
Mobile: 00 44 (0)7957643357<tel:00%2044%20%280%297957643357>
LinkedIn: Phil Buckingham

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Radell, Suzanne
Sent: 25 November 2015 22:33
To: Accountability Cross Community
Cc: ACCT-Staff
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] NTIA Statement on ST 18

Hello everyone, Assistant Secretary Strickling has asked that I share this with the CCWG.  Best regards, Suz

NTIA Statement on Stress Test 18
November 25, 2015

NTIA has been closely following the discussions in the CCWG-Accountability, including the recently concluded small group on stress test 18.  As has been the case throughout the work of the CCWG, we are impressed by the time and dedication so many of you are putting into these important discussions.  We thank everyone for their efforts as the group works to finalize the proposal for publication on November 30.

NTIA has long believed that governments, like all stakeholders, have an important role to play within multistakeholder processes, including ICANN.  Our position on that has not changed.  As the CCWG finalizes its proposals for enhancing ICANN’s accountability, we feel we should reiterate our view, as we stated last July, that ICANN preserve and clarify the current practice of the Board  in responding to advice it receives from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).  Specifically, ICANN should amend its Bylaws to clarify that the Board is required to enter into a formal consultation process with the GAC only where it receives GAC advice that is consensus advice based on the current definition within the GAC’s Operating Principles, that is, advice to which no GAC member has raised a formal objection.

We want to make clear that nothing about this proposal is intended to limit how the GAC determines what advice it submits to the Board.  As the Bylaws make clear, the Board is obligated to duly take all GAC advice into account.  However, it is not practicable for the Board to give GAC advice special consideration unless it is consensus advice as currently defined in the GAC Operating Principles.  Anything less than consensus places the Board in the awkward, if not impossible, position of trying to choose between governments with conflicting opinions.  NTIA sees any deviation from the current standard of consensus as introducing instability into the system while also inadvertently diminishing the important role of governments.  Accordingly, every time the GAC provides consensus advice that it expects to trigger the special Bylaws consideration from the Board, it must be unambiguous and consistent with the current definition in the Operating Principles.  Asking the Board to interpret any other threshold of support seems counter to the spirit of the CCWG’s efforts to empower the community in a clear and consistent manner.  It also undermines the work done to implement the relevant recommendations of ATRT1 to fix what the community diagnosed as a dysfunctional Board-GAC relationship.

We are aware that some countries are concerned that the current GAC Operating Principles could lead to a single-country veto of GAC advice to the detriment of other countries.  We too share that concern.  But the right place to deal with that issue is not at the last minute in the CCWG but in a more reasoned and full discussion of this issue within the GAC.  NTIA stands ready to participate in and contribute to such a discussion to resolve that concern at the appropriate time and place.

Suzanne Murray Radell
Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA
sradell at ntia.doc.gov<mailto:sradell at ntia.doc.gov>
202-482-3167

_______________________________________________
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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
InternetNZ

+64-4-495-2118<tel:%2B64-4-495-2118> (office) | +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
Skype: jordancarter
Web: www.internetnz.nz<http://www.internetnz.nz>

A better world through a better Internet

_______________________________________________
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

--
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
InternetNZ

+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
Skype: jordancarter
Web: www.internetnz.nz<http://www.internetnz.nz>

A better world through a better Internet

_______________________________________________
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