[CCWG-ACCT] RES: RES: Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishings

Fri Jan 29 12:10:13 UTC 2016

Dear all,

+1 to Brazil´s comments.

Best regards

Olga

2016-01-29 8:55 GMT-03:00 Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva <
pedro.ivo at itamaraty.gov.br>:

> Dear co-Chairs, CCWG-colleagues,
>
> We fully support Kavouss' suggestion to include the "status quo" (no
> changes to current bylaws) as an additional option to the existing options
> 5 and 6 in the CCWG document.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
> Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI)
> Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil
> T: + 55 61 2030-6609
>
> Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
> Division of Information Society (DI)
> Ministry of External Relations - Brazil
> T: + 55 61 2030-6609
>
>
>
> -----Mensagem original-----
> De: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] Em nome de Kavouss
> Arasteh
> Enviada em: sexta-feira, 29 de janeiro de 2016 06:56
> Para: <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>; Steve DelBianco
> Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Assunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC
> consensus, and finishings
>
> Dear Steve
> As the Architect of Rec. 11 and ST18, may I request you to include the
> third option ( as new point 7) in the doc.
> With the opposition of  one SO on the emerged consensus it would leave no
> option to me and likely to many GAC to ask for NO CHANGE to the current
> Bylaws and deletion of ST 18 Regards Kavouss
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 29 Jan 2016, at 09:07, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear All
> > It is disappointing that one SO openly acts against the very interest of
> an AC which is vitally important for the smooth transition process.
> > I therefore encourage everybody to opt for option contained in No. 5
> > even if with that option there is not yet consensus in GAC Failure to
> > accept that I propose alternative 7 Drop 5&6 And take new alternative
> > (7) Status Quo 1.Existing Bylaws text unchanged 2. Suppression of ST
> > 18 for which many GAC opposed since April 2015 Regards Kavousd
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On 29 Jan 2016, at 07:56, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> <
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks for this conversation on process.
> >>
> >> After yesterdays discussion it seems  clear that the eventual change of
> key parts of the Rec 11 and the CCWG compromise underlying it, would have
> an important impact, both for those who are proposing it, and for the
> globality of Governments participating in the GAC.
> >>
> >> This would surely require an inclusive discussion and process.
> >>
> >> Hence I would kindly ask the Co-Chairs how they would intend to proceed
> in socializing such a changed proposal with the wider community.
> >>
> >> thanks for any guidance
> >>
> >> Jorge
> >>
> >> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
> >>
> >> Am 29.01.2016 um 07:41 schrieb Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au<mailto:
> ceo at auda.org.au>>:
> >>
> >> Hello All,
> >>
> >>
> >> I also thought there was something like that in the charter but I have
> just gone to look at it again and could not find it either.
> >>
> >> That is indeed correct. The relevant part of the charter (excising the
> supplementary proposal bit) is:
> >>
> >>
> >> "SO and AC support for the Draft Proposal(s)
> >>
> >> Following submission of the Draft Proposal(s), each of the chartering
> organizations shall, in accordance with their own rules and procedures,
> review and discuss the Draft Proposal(s) and decide whether to adopt the
> recommendations contained in it. The chairs of the chartering organizations
> shall notify the co-chairs of the WG of the result of the deliberations as
> soon as feasible.
> >>
> >> Submission Board Report
> >>
> >> After receiving the notifications from all chartering organizations as
> described above, the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability shall, within 10
> working days after receiving the last notification, submit to the Chair of
> the ICANN Board of Directors and Chairs of all the chartering organizations
> the CCWG-Accountability Board Report, which shall include at a minimum:
> >>
> >> a)     The (Supplemental) Proposal as adopted by the
> CCWG-Accountability; and
> >>
> >> b)     The notifications of the decisions from the chartering
> organizations
> >>
> >> c)     Documentation of the process that was followed, including, but
> not limited to documenting the process of building consensus within the
> CCWG-Accountability and public consultations.
> >>
> >> In the event one or more of the chartering organizations do(es) not
> support (parts of) the (Supplemental) Proposal(s), the Board Report shall
> also clearly indicate the part(s) of the (Supplemental) Final Proposal(s)
> which are fully supported and the parts which not, and which of the
> chartering organizations dissents, to the extent this is feasible."
> >>
> >> So technically there is nothing to prevent the CCWG from submitting The
> Proposal adopted only by 3 or 2 or 1 of the Chartering Organisations.
> >>
> >> I think the only reference to the requirement for adoption by at least
> most if not all chartering organisations has been Larry Strickling’s
> various comments about expecting to receive a consensus proposal and that a
> proposal with ‘objections’ or ‘expressions of concern’ would not be likely
> to be be deemed a consensus proposal.
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >>
> >> Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer
> >>
> >> .au Domain Administration Ltd
> >>
> >> T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112
> >>
> >> E: ceo at auda.org.au<mailto:ceo at auda.org.au> | W:
> >> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au/>
> >>
> >> auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator
> >>
> >>
> >> Important Notice - This email may contain information which is
> confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use
> of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you
> must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received
> this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message
> immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 29 Jan 2016, at 17:25 , Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:
> seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Good question, actually for some reason I also thought there was
> something like that in the charter but I have just gone to look at it again
> and could not find it either.
> >>
> >> https://community.icann.org/m/mobile.action#page/50823977
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> On 28 Jan 2016 10:33 p.m., "Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva" <
> pedro.ivo at itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:pedro.ivo at itamaraty.gov.br>> wrote:
> >> Dear Keith,
> >>
> >>>>> "My understanding is that the CCWG proposal can be finalized and
> approved with 4 of 5 chartering organizations in support. "
> >>
> >> Thanks for sharing your understanding. However, could you point to the
> specific text in the CCWG Charter where this threshold (4 out of 5) is
> defined? I couldn't find it.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
> >> Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI) Ministério das Relações
> >> Exteriores - Brasil
> >> T: + 55 61 2030-6609<tel:%2B%2055%2061%202030-6609>
> >>
> >> Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
> >> Division of Information Society (DI)
> >> Ministry of External Relations - Brazil
> >> T: + 55 61 2030-6609<tel:%2B%2055%2061%202030-6609>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Mensagem original-----
> >> De:
> >> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountabilit
> >> y-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
> >> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accou
> >> ntability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] Em nome de Drazek,
> >> Keith Enviada em: quinta-feira, 28 de janeiro de 2016 19:05
> >> Para: Andrew Sullivan;
> >> accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-
> >> community at icann.org>
> >> Assunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC
> >> consensus, and finishing
> >>
> >> Hi Andrew,
> >>
> >> My understanding is that the CCWG proposal can be finalized and
> approved with 4 of 5 chartering organizations in support. So, a single
> organization in opposition *should* not scuttle the package.
> >>
> >> It's unclear to me what happens if one chartering organization is
> silent and another opposed, leaving only 3 in support.  Probably a question
> for the Co-Chairs.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Keith
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From:
> >> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountabilit
> >> y-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
> >> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accou
> >> ntability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Andrew
> >> Sullivan
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 3:58 PM
> >> To:
> >> accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-
> >> community at icann.org>
> >> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC
> >> consensus, and finishing
> >>
> >> Dear colleagues,
> >>
> >> I was going to make a comment on the call today, but in the interests
> of time I took myself out of the queue.  This note replaces what I wanted
> to say.
> >>
> >> For those chartering organizations and individuals that wish to reject
> the compromise, I have a question.  If the proposed compromise position on
> recommendation 11 is rejected, there is a good reason to suppose that at
> least one important part of the community (the GAC) will reject the
> accountability proposal.  That will conceivably scuttle the transition; and
> in the absence of a consensus on the accountability measures, there is no
> reason to suppose we'll get the additional powers that are in the current
> text (incuding the Empowered Community).  Is it worth it to give up those
> additional powers to prevent the 2/3 board threshold, given that the
> additional powers provide a way to foil truly bad decisions anyway?
> >>
> >> As I understand things, we are in a trap.  On the one hand, the GAC has
> produced a consensus position that the board must reject GAC advice by a
> supermajority.  And indeed, as things are, the ICANN board has a difficult
> time even under the current arrangements when it decides to reject GAC
> advice.  Yet the GAC is currently free to rearrange its own procedures such
> that it could lower its own threshold for decisions.  Therefore, the
> consensus position of the GAC represents a grave threat to the transition.
> The current state of affairs is in any case not that hot; and the GAC could
> unilaterally make that current state of affairs worse.
> >>
> >> The compromise proposal does a few things.  It is true that it
> increases the threshold for the board to reject GAC advice.  But in
> exchange for that, it enshrines the GAC's responsibility to the rest of the
> ICANN community as to how the GAC will reach decisions.  This means that,
> in exchange for the increased threshold -- a threshold that I think will be
> easy to reach regardless of the actual numbers on the board in any case
> that counts -- the GAC is giving up independent control over its
> decision-making procedures when exercising that threshold.  In that way, it
> is actually an improvement of GAC's covenant with the ICANN community.
> >>
> >> Moreover, let us suppose that the GAC produced advice that the board
> decided to accept, but the rest of the community found that objectionable.
> In that case, the rest of the community could force the board not to take
> the advice _anyway_, because of the additional accountability measures that
> this CCWG wants to put in place.
> >>
> >> The compromise proposal is not perfect -- I too would prefer not to
> have the 2/3 rule -- but one does not expect complete satisfaction from a
> compromise.  And it should be surprising to no-one that it came rather
> late: each side wants something pretty big, and both appear to be dug in.
> This means that each will need to give something up.
> >> That's what deals look like.  And we need a deal, and soon, because we
> need to move ahead with the IANA transition.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> A
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrew Sullivan
> >> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160129/d39bc967/attachment-0001.html>