[CCWG-ACCT] Notice of polling of members on Recommendation 11 at the next meeting of the CCWG February 2nd 06:00UTC

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Sat Jan 30 21:38:42 UTC 2016


You only list 2 designations: Full Consensus and Consensus.  I am
assuming it is possible that you could get Less than Consensus (don't
expect it or wish for it, but it is possible).  Should that be listed as
a possibility as well?


On 30-Jan-16 15:47, Mathieu Weill wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
> Our usual approach is not achieving consensus on a way forward with
> Recommendation 11.  So, as discussed at our last meeting, we will be
> conducting a poll of Members on this question at our next meeting.
> We will only be conducting a poll on third draft Recommendation 11,
> with the current minor amendments, given it is the text presented in
> the third draft and no alternative so far has demonstrated an ability
> to bring the different perspectives any closer.
> Exceptionally and unfortunately we will only be polling Members of the
> CCWG as defined and permitted in our charter.
> According to our Charter, the co-chairs shall be responsible for
> designating each position as having one of the following designations:
> a)      Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees;
> identified by an absence of objection
> b)     Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but
> most agree
> Accordingly, determination of consensus will be based on the level of
> objection, not support.
> In the absence of Full Consensus, the co chairs will allow for the
> submission of minority viewpoint(s)which will be included in the
> Suppplemental report.
> In the absence of Consensus, we will need to assess what process the
> group will follow to rebuild consensus, or whether the absence of
> Consensus should be reported to the Chartering Organizations.
> The polling question will be:
> *Do you object to including Recommendation 11 as written below in the
> CCWG-Accountability’s supplemental report to be submitted for
> Chartering Organisation approval?*
> Members unable to attend the meeting in-person may appoint an
> alternate. Alternates will be eligible if they are a current
> participant of the CCWG-Accountability. Alternates must be announced
> prior to the call to acct-staff at icann.org <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>.
> *                             *
>                 *
> Recommendation 11 is designed to address Stress Test 18, which
> identified that GAC may change its method of decision-making to
> something other than the method it now uses: general agreement in the
> absence of any formal objections.  Today’s bylaws would still require
> the ICANN board to “try to find a mutually acceptable solution,” even
> for GAC advice that was opposed by a significant number of
> governments.  To address this Stress Test, Recommendation 11 currently
> reads:
> 1        The CCWG-Accountability recommends that the following changes
> be made to the ICANN Bylaws Article XI, Section 2:
> /j. The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy
> matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and
> adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to
> take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory
> Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the
> reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. *_Any Governmental
> Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory
> Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting
> decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection,
> may only be rejected by a vote of 2/3 of the Board_*, and the
> Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in
> good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually
> acceptable solution./
> 2        Notes:
> The GAC has the autonomy to refine its operating procedures to specify
> how objections are raised and considered (for example, disallowing a
> single country to continue an objection on the same issue if no other
> countries will join in an objection). When transmitting consensus
> advice to the Board for which the GAC seeks to receive special
> consideration, the GAC has the obligation to confirm the lack of any
> formal objection.
> This recommendation is intended only to limit the conditions under
> which the ICANN board and GAC must “try to find a mutually acceptable
> solution”, as required in ICANN’s current bylaws.  This recommendation
> shall not create any new obligations for ICANN board to consider, vote
> upon, or to implement GAC advice, relative to the bylaws in effect
> prior to the IANA transition.
> Insert this requirement for all ACs: A rationale must accompany any
> formal advice provided by an Advisory Committee to the ICANN Board.
> The Board shall have the responsibility to determine whether the
> rationale provided is adequate to enable determination of whether
> following that advice would be consistent with ICANN bylaws.
> To address the concern of GAC advice inconsistent with bylaws, add
> this clarification for legal counsel to consider when drafting bylaws
> language:
> ICANN cannot take action - based on advice or otherwise – that is
> inconsistent with Bylaws.  While the GAC is not restricted as to the
> advice it can offer to ICANN, it is clear that ICANN may not take
> action that is inconsistent with its Bylaws. Any aggrieved party, or
> the empowered community, will have standing to bring an IRP to
> challenge whether a board action or inaction is inconsistent with its
> bylaws, even if the board acted on GAC advice.
> The language proposed in recommendations for ICANN Bylaw revisions are
> conceptual in nature at this stage. The CCWG-Accountability’s external
> legal counsel and the ICANN legal team will draft final language for
> these revisions to the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws
> (Fundamental/Standard Bylaws).
> As a reminder, Recommendation 11 obtained the following results in the
> public comment period on the third draft of the CCWG-Accountability:
> ·         Support 35
> ·         Against 19
> ·         Neutral 2
> ·         N/A 26
> Chartering Organization responses to the Third draft are summarized as:
> ·         GNSO : “Little support; strong opposition” to Rec 11 as
> written in Third Draft Proposal. “Most SG/Cs do not support” raising
> threshold for Board vote to reject GAC advice. Serious concern over
> lack of specificity in relation of requirements for GAC advice (such
> as provision of rationale) and possibility that this recommendation,
> if adopted, could unduly change nature of Board-GAC relationship
> and/or position of GAC vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs believe
> any recommendation should retain current flexibility in Bylaws where
> Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in order to reject
> GAC advice.
> ·         ccNSO: no specific comment
> ·         ASO: In general, we find the current text acceptable.
> Additionally, we would like to make the following remarks: We would
> support a text that clarifies today’s practices and does not
> substantially change the GAC's role and how its advice is treated by
> the Board or substantially strengthen obligations for the Board to
> consider the GAC advice. We would not support a text that cannot be
> acceptable by the NTIA.
> ·         GAC: There is no consensus within the GAC so far to support
> or object to the text contained in Recommendation 11 of the 3rd Draft
> Proposal.
> ·         ALAC: supports the recommendation
> SSAC: no specific comment
> Best,
> Leon Thomas & Mathieu
> CCWG Accountability Co-chairs
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list