[CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Sat Jan 30 15:05:05 UTC 2016

Hello Kavous,

I don't think my mail implied that GAC be subordinate to any community, and
if it does please note that it's not my intention to communicate such. I
was however saying that it would have been a good thing to find a way of
receiving all the community input and make attempt to address them as much
as possible during the policy development phase, so that a more wholesome
document/proposal can get to the board.

What Malcolm proposed may address such wish of mine but I have stated my
reservation about how difficult and perhaps unrealistic this could be,
owning to the current structure of SO/AC with respect to policy development.

On 30 Jan 2016 15:33, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Seun
> Do you agree that GAC become sub- ordinate of GNSO????!!!!
> Strange agreement.
> I am categorically against such dependency
> Kavouss
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 30 Jan 2016, at 11:48, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would have added a +1~ to this mainly because it removes the 2/3 from
> the discussion, even though it technically have no impact on ICANN
> accountability but i have remained concerned about major impact it could
> cause politically(especially when it is read "wrongly/rightly" as an
> increase in govt control). However, this assumes that GNSO was not
> supportive of the 2/3 on the fear of GAC's advice interfering on its
> policies? but GAC's advice may not always have to do with GNSO related
> issues.
> Personally, I have always wondered why GAC advice relating to names
> policies does not get feed directly to the process, but I concluded its
> perhaps by design since AC (in this context) are meant to provide advice.
> The question then would be to determine if indeed the PDP would ensure to
> give recognition to such an advice in the same way it does for its
> constituencies.
> That said, I think other than the bylaw change, a number of other
> documents relating to GNSO PDP/decision making processes may need to be
> updated in other to make your proposal become a reality and I wonder if
> that won't be a tall order.
> Cheers!
> On 30 Jan 2016 10:50 a.m., "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:
>> On 29/01/2016 21:24, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch wrote:
>> > it is a bit akward you would need to concede that you imply that
>> > without the 2/3 the GNSO would be able to support Rec 11.
>> >
>> > It gives an impression as if Rec 11 (without 2/3) would contain
>> > anything "that would need to be accepted", when as we all know Rec 11
>> > (without 2/3) corresponds to 100% of the GNSO starting position.
>> >
>> > So there would be any concession. No aspect "in need to be
>> > accepted".
>> >
>> > Just a 100% win-situation for the GNSO.
>> On 29/01/2016 22:01, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch wrote:
>> > I feel that at this critical juncture we all have to keep the whole
>> > picture in our heads, be creative (as Becky for instance) and look
>> > for a solution which may be acceptable across the community as a
>> > whole.
>> The 2/3 rule is evidently unacceptable to the GNSO.
>> Without that rule, Rec.11 would (it seems) be acceptable to them. Jorge
>> says "But this is their starting position, it would mean a 100%
>> win-situation for the GNSO". I might observe that the logic of that
>> seems to be that GNSO ought to have come to CCWG with a more extreme
>> initial position, so that it could settle on what it really wanted.
>> Perhaps it will learn to adapt its negotiating tactics.
>> However, I do agree with Jorge: we need to try to respect the need for
>> all parties to be seen to gain improvements from our changes. I would
>> therefore like us to take up his challenge to "be creative" in an
>> attempt to find a solution.
>> Let us consider what the 2/3 rule attempts:
>> - from a government point of view, it provides an assurance that GAC
>> advice will be given greater weight, affirming the importance of
>> government input. Such an assurance is necessary to them.
>> - from a GNSO point of view, it ensures that the Board will
>> automatically follow GAC advice (except in very unusual circumstances)
>> transforming ICANN into a body which is led by government policy. Such a
>> transformation is unacceptable to them.
>> With GNSO opposition, I believe we must accept that the 2/3 rule is
>> dead. But taking up Jorge's challenge, we must replace it not with
>> nothing, but with something creative that would offer in its place the
>> assurance to governments the 2/3 rule seeks to achieve, without creating
>> the transformation that the GNSO opposes.
>> I think it would be useful if people come forward with ideas for
>> strengthening the input of governments without overbalancing the
>> decision-making process as the 2/3 rule does.
>> I would therefore like to make the following suggestion of my own:
>> * Remove the 2/3 rule; and
>> * Provide that when providing advice on GNSO policy, GAC advice is given
>> directly to the GNSO (during the PDP) instead of to the Board, (after
>> the community consensus policy is finalised and ready to be ratified).
>> Require that the GNSO consider any such GAC advice before adopting a PDP
>> policy. (This is conceptual: lawyers can wordsmith).
>> The advantages of this proposal, as I see them, are as follows:
>> - By accepting GAC advice into an earlier stage of the process, it will
>> be possible to incorporate it into the design of the policy, rather than
>> tacking it on as an adjunct. GAC advice will therefore be more effective
>> and the ultimate outcome more likely to reflect GAC expectations than at
>> present.
>> - By incorporating the fruits of GAC advice into the community proposal,
>> it will also benefit from the rule that the Board is expected to accept
>> GNSO community consensus policy proposals, and can only reject them by
>> 2/3 supermajority.
>> - By including the GAC in the policy-development process we strengthen
>> the GAC's role as a part of our community, reducing the "them and us"
>> tensions and helping to ensure that GAC concerns are given full respect
>> at every level of the organisation.
>> Most importantly, this suggestions aims to strengthen the GAC's role in
>> a manner that also strengthens the multi-stakeholder policy development
>> process, rather than standing in tension with it. It can therefore be
>> seen not as a zero-sum compromise but a true win-win solution.
>> I look forward to your thoughts,
>> Malcolm.
>> --
>>             Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>>    Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
>>  London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
>>                  London Internet Exchange Ltd
>>        Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ
>>          Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>>        Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160130/e4a35de0/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list