[CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11

Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Sat Jan 30 15:56:20 UTC 2016

Dear all

GNSO and GAC work on mutual cooperation improvements in PDPs. That's already work in progress.

What has to be clarified is whether GNSO is able to accept the key elements of the compromise found by CCWG in the 3rd draft report, including the 2/3 threshold, bearing in mind all the changes made in the last days to Rec 11 at their behest, which have counted with constructive reaction by GAC members. If additional reasonable and non-discriminatory clarifications are needed and explained I would suppose that this constructive spirit would continue.



Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 30.01.2016 um 16:06 schrieb Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>:

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<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
Do you agree that GAC become sub- ordinate of GNSO????!!!!
Strange agreement.
I am categorically against such dependency

Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Jan 2016, at 11:48, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto: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.


On 30 Jan 2016 10:50 a.m., "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm at linx.net<mailto:malcolm at linx.net>> wrote:
On 29/01/2016 21:24, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto: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<mailto: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

- 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 Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523<tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523>
   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<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