[CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs

Schaefer, Brett Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org
Mon Feb 22 02:21:47 UTC 2016


Brett Schaefer
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002

On Feb 21, 2016, at 8:08 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:

My responses are inline below.


On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
Minority Statement

Dear All,

I have read and read the Minority Statement made by A GAC MEMBERS in CCWG which is now supported by 11 other governments.

​It's worth noting that the other GAC members in the CCWG have not supported this Minority Statement, so it remains just that -- a minority statement.

Have you read the Minority Statement made by a GNSO Member in CCWG (Robin Gross) which is now supported by a number of other stakeholders?  We should not emphasize one Minority Statement over another.

There serval messages in that Statement

GAC Situation at this very moment

  1.  In future only a full Consensus  Advice in the absence of any formal objection would be considered by the Board which is quite different from existing situation . This make it very probable that as of the date of the transition coming in to force , NO MORE GAC ADVICE WOULD  BE POSSIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE Board due to the fact that, no matter how much efforts be made by 154 existing GAC Members, one single  Government  on any ground as it so wishes could block that Advice not to become eligible for consideration by the Board. This is a new working method that enshrining a clear VETO to null out efforts of the rest of the GAC members in this regard. This is resulted from the proposed ST18

​This is not a new working method.  This is not quite different from the existing situation.  It is the current and longstanding working method of the GAC.

You seem to think that the Proposal says GAC advice won't even be considered by the Board unless it is full consensus Advice. However, that is simply not true. The GAC can provide advice that is not full consensus advice, and the Board will still have to "duly take into account" that advice.  But, if it's full consensus advice (as all GAC advice has been to date), the Board will be required to consult with the GAC and try to reach a mutually acceptable solution if the Board votes to act inconsistently with that advice -- and that vote will now require a supermajority, thanks to the new Proposal.

So, there is no real change, except that if the GAC decides to offer non-full-consensus advice, it will not get all of the deference accorded to full-consensus advice.  However, if the GAC sticks with the status quo (full consensus advice), then its advice will be treated with even greater deference, due to the newly-acquired supermajority vote.

In other words, if the GAC continues to do what it has always done, its advice will be even harder for the Board to reject.  There's no reason that this would result in "no more GAC advice".

(If this is an implicit plea to require the Board to give the same deferential treatment to non-full-consensus advice as it does to full consensus advice, that is an absolute non-starter.)

Consequently the so-called special privilege repeatedly referred to  by others would in fact very rarely happens

​As noted above, there is every reason to believe that the special privilege will occur as often as it happens now, which is virtually every time the GAC acts.

  1.  The 2/3 threshold for the rejection of the GAC Advice by the Board was proposed  but was not accepted unless the existing Simple Majority is retained  However, if instead of either of Simple Majority a 60% threshold is taken, it should be  combined with  the so-called CARE-OUT CONCEPT .This implies that on the one hand the probability of having GAC advice is limited to the most lowest level , almost zero probability  based on the  argument mentioned in 1) above ,however, even if on a rare care there would be a GAC Advice  with full consensus, that advice may be rejected by 60% of the Board’s Member

​The combination of the 60% supermajority threshold and the carve-out is what has been proposed.  I'm not certain of the rest of your point, especially since there's no basis for the claim that GAC advice will be any rarer than it is now​.


  2.  Should the Board agrees to the Initial (very improbable occurrence of GAC Advice), or if the initial advice is rejected but then was accepted as results of negotiation of the Board with GAC any one in the community could invoke IRP or just simply make a petition to recall the entire Board with only 3 SO/AC in favour excluding by alleging that Board acceptance of Advice was inconsistent with its mission or Bylaws, or Article of Incorporation. As results of application of so-called carve-out approach/concept  GAC would excluded to exercise its legitimate right to participate in the decision making  and defend the case

​Again, this is an incorrect understanding of the proposal.  Under the carve-out, the GAC will have every right to make it's case and to participate in every aspect of the escalation process -- except the decisional moment. ​

  1.  These unfavorable situation does not exist for any SO and AC at al

​Other SO/ACs do not have the same privileged position as the GAC.  If anything, that privileged position is strengthened by the Proposal, given the 60% supermajority.  Depriving the GAC of its "second bite at the apple" is a small counterbalance to this privileged position.​

  1.  in view of the above GAC  has lost the battle in three DIFFERENT  fronts

​This score-keeping is incorrect (although I reject the idea that this should be cast as a "battle" between the GAC and other stakeholders).  The GAC has won its supermajority vote battle.   The GAC members signing on to the Minority Statement may believe the GAC has lost its (potential) ability to offer non-full-consensus advice and have it treated the same as full-consensus-advice, but I would hardly count that as a loss, since the likelihood of such a change is fairly low (and would likely have engendered a multistakeholder debate very much like the one w​e have had for many months).  As far as current activities go, the GAC has lost nothing.  The carve-out may be seen as a "loss" (although I prefer to think of it as a compromise, or an adjustment) and the less-privileged position that non-consensus advice will enjoy may also be seen as a loss, but these are balanced by the "win" of the supermajority vote.


6             Some other communities said that in exchange of what GAC  lost ,it  has  gained the ability to exercise the community power and become a decisional making community in some areas.

7             Such empowerment which did not exist for any SO/AC now is given to every SOs /ACs

8             That is not totally correct due to the following

8.1          Some of the power is now waived as results of application of so-called Carve-out

8.2          GAC has not decided and may never decide to exercise those powers atall,

​The GAC's decisional power is only waived in very specific instances and only to a specific extent (decision-making); in every other case, the GAC's ability to participate i​s completely unfettered.  If the GAC does not decide to exercise its decisional powers, then the whole issue of the "carve-out" is moot.  In any event, the GAC will have the capacity to exercise those powers whenever it wants to.

9.            In view of the above, there is a need to give a fresh look and reconsider the situation.

​I don't see anything in the above, once certain misunderstandings are clarified, that gives rise to the need for a fresh look and reconsideration of the situation.

10. Based on the above understanding from the Minority Statement, wouldn’t be possible that the utmost efforts be made to find a win-win situation for every SO/AC?

​I think we have a win-win in the current proposal.  Every side of the equation may want a bigger win, but that's the essence of compromise and consensus.​

 11. Any of us is subject to make a mistake or misconception. The important issue is to duly correct the mistake .

​I don't see the current proposal as a mistake.  The only mistakes I see here are fundamental misunderstandings of the proposal.

Never is late. There is always an opportunity to remedy the problem.

However, it requires good will, spirit of collaboration, mutual understanding and freindly and healthy enviroment for resolution of the problem

Pelasse kindly be friendly and kindly avoid demonstrating any emotion and fully respect the IVCANN ETHIC

You may disagree or agree but pls avoid and offensive message



2016-02-21 20:58 GMT+01:00 Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>:
Eberhard is free to express his views on the co-chairs. We all have our views.

Let me just be clear:

We have described and summarized the current situation with our statement. We have not reopened a discussion nor predetermined the outcome of such discusion.

Given the situation, there are multiple options for the group to consider and to proceed on. These options will have different (potential) consequences and we did not and do not deem it appropriate for the co-chairs to make such determination without consulting with the CCWG. This consultation will take place on Tuesday.

Kind regards,
Thomas Rickert


Am 21.02.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>:

I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs).  But he is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management.

For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following:

1)      Change from Single Member to Single Designator

2)      GAC advice gets a 60% threshold

3)      ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all

All of those are things that I’m unhappy with.  So if the Board gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the timeline), let’s just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we?


Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>

From: epilisse at gmail.com<mailto:epilisse at gmail.com> [mailto:epilisse at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM
To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors at omadhina.net<mailto:directors at omadhina.net>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs

I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting.

In any case let me place the current state on the record:

Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly.

But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it.

These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living.

Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement.

In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line.

Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess.


Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini

On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>, wrote:

+2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions.

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list