[CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues

[Andrew Sullivan]

Dear Jorge,

On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 05:03:15PM +0000, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch wrote:
> 
> such a obligation to chose (only for the GAC) was never in any CCWG draft report.

Of course this has not appeard in any previous draft report.  It is a
clever new compromise that's being proposed to address previous
apparently irreconcilable goals.  If we restrict ourselves strictly
only to what has appeared in any of the previous drafts, we will be
unable to find the compromise necessary to deliver the
CCWG-Accountability's task.  That would, I think, be fatal to the IANA
transition.  It also, I think, would in the long run desperately
weaken ICANN.  I don't see how any of that is a winning strategy, so I
think finding a way to compromise is needed.

> It is inconsistent with the multistakeholder model and the principle
> of equal footing.

I don't see how.  The GAC has always behaved differently than other
stakeholder constituencies in ICANN, and the proposal formalises that
role.  It allows GAC to have a choice: behave like everyone else, and
then participate in the equal footing you call out; or else behave in
a way different to other constituency groups, and then be treated
differently too.

The analogy you have drawn with the *NSO is not apt, for two reasons.
First, the NSOs (and particularly the GNSO) members have direct
operational stake in the outcome of PDPs.  Second, PDPs have a great
deal of process associated with them before they render decisions, and
that process includes a lot of public consultation.  The same is not
true of GAC advice.  A more apt analogy to the GAC would be other ACs,
and it seems to me that those ACs already labour under the same rules
as the GAC would in case it decided not to take the "formal GAC
advice" path.  That really does follow the principle of equal footing.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com