[CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
Sun Jan 31 01:54:58 UTC 2016
Which of course reverts to my original question: what are the governments saying and what is the nature and degree of their disagreements, if any.
--
Paul
Sent from myMail app for Android Saturday, 30 January 2016, 04:31PM -06:00 from CW Mail < mail at christopherwilkinson.eu> :
>I would expect most governments to make their comments in the GAC itself.
>Only exceptionally to respond to public comments periods.
>
>CW
>
>
>On 30 Jan 2016, at 23:15, "Paul Rosenzweig" < paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com > wrote:
>
>> Sure Jorge
>>
>> I'll happily agree with you that everyone who spoke to the issue of the
>> 2/3rd vote that was a government (as opposed to the rest of the community)
>> supported it.
>>
>> In return, ought you not to acknowledge that the entire opposition to the
>> full consensus/ST18 proposal is exactly 5 countries? Nobody outside the GAC
>> affirmatively supports less than full consensus and many (most notably the
>> gNSO) actively opposes it. Ought you not to acknowledge that the tiny
>> minority of 5 dissenters is who is blocking consensus on that aspect of the
>> issue?
>>
>> And, since we are asking questions -- why didn't the government of
>> Switzerland submit comments?
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> Paul Rosenzweig
>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
>> Link to my PGP Key
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch]
>> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 4:40 PM
>> To: paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>> Cc: egmorris1 at toast.net; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11
>>
>> Dear Paul
>>
>> As I said I cannot and would not dare to speak for the GAC.
>>
>> But in any group where expressing one's opinion is not compulsory, normally
>> a majority does remain silent and those with a strong sentiment speak out,
>> factually "representing" in some way the main currents of thought in such a
>> group.
>>
>> I guess this happens all across the board and in all constituencies, as it
>> happens in our CCWG, where some of us (to varying degrees) cope a lot of the
>> conversations while the majority of the +150 (?) members and participants
>> are normally silent.
>>
>> So, I guess that based on this "voluntary" principle the data you mention on
>> the 2/3 element is significant, at least in showing that there seems not to
>> be any government considering that threshold as something they should object
>> (quite to the contrary it seems). And of the governments which participated
>> there is quite an interesting variety in regional terms.
>>
>> best regards
>>
>> Jorge
>>
>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>>
>>> Am 30.01.2016 um 22:14 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig
>> < paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com >:
>>>
>>> Jorge
>>>
>>> I took you up on the implicit challenge and have just spent an hour
>> happily
>>> reading all of the government comments on CCWG-A Third Draft. I may
>> have
>>> missed a comment, but I don't think so.
>>>
>>> I can happily report the following to the community:
>>>
>>> 15 governments commented on the Third Draft report. Of those 14
>>> addressed Rec 11 and 7 also addressed Rec 1. One government (Italy)
>>> addressed only Rec 2.
>>>
>>> Of the 7 who addressed Rec 1: 4 governments supported GAC voting in
>>> the EC (Brazil, Argentina, Japan, and NZ) though two (Japan and NZ)
>>> expressed caution about this. Two governments said GAC should be
>>> advisory only
>>> (Ireland/Denmark) and one (UK) said that the decision should be up to
>>> the GAC.
>>>
>>> Of the 14 who addressed Rec 11:
>>> -- All who spoke to the issue supported the 2/3rd vote
>>> rejection rule. Some were silent
>>> -- Eight governments supported the current full consensus rule
>>> (Australia, NZ, UK, Japan, Sweden, Ireland, Canada, and Denmark); five
>>> opposed it (Brazil, France, Argentina, Portugal, India); one (Norway)
>>> noted lack of GAC consensus.
>>>
>>> So my assessment is that a very small sample of 6 governments splits
>>> 2-1 in favor of a GAC voting role in the EC and a somewhat larger
>>> sample of 13 governments splits 8-5 in favor of ST18 and full consensus.
>>>
>>> To be honest, I think that doesn't tell us much. There are 153
>>> governments in the GAC. A sample of 10% probably says nothing about
>>> sentiment in that body. Nonetheless the data speak for themselves at
>> least as far as they go.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> Paul Rosenzweig
>>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
>>> Link to my PGP Key
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch]
>>> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 3:04 PM
>>> To: egmorris1 at toast.net
>>> Cc: paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com;
>>> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11
>>>
>>> Hi Ed
>>>
>>> I don't know the numbers by heart, but I'll guess they are on the
>>> public comment sheet produced by staff (actually I just saw in their
>>> ppt that out of 90 comments 17% come from govts).
>>>
>>> But let's not go down that road: if we count who participates and
>>> extend it to other constituencies we will also see the "same faces" all
>> over again:
>>> that is a consequence of the principle of voluntary participation.
>>>
>>> In the GAC this is "compensated" with our voluntary high consensus
>>> threshold which requires to include any interested delegation into a
>> consensus.
>>>
>>> regards
>>> Jorge
>>>
>>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>>>
>>>> Am 30.01.2016 um 20:54 schrieb Edward Morris < egmorris1 at toast.net >:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jorge,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for this.
>>>>
>>>> I believe the GAC has around 140 members, give or take a few. As
>>>> you've
>>> gone through all the public comments filed by governments would be so
>>> kind as to us know how many governments actually filed public comments
>>> and what percentage of GAC membership that represents?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Ed Morris
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>> On 30 Jan 2016, at 19:46, < Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch >
>>> < Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> I cannot speak for the GAC of course, but the last consensus input
>>>>> on
>>> ST18 we had was the Dublin Communique.
>>>>>
>>>>> The subsequent Rec 11 did not satisfy some governments, as they
>>>>> basically
>>> thought that it did not comply with the "autonomy in defining
>>> consensus"-element agreed in Dublin.
>>>>>
>>>>> This may be checked with the comments filed in the third public
>>>>> comment
>>> period on the third draft report by governments.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I have gone through all public comments filed by governments
>>>>> and
>>> I'm not aware of any position rejecting or objecting to Rec 11 because
>>> it would consider that it went "too far" i.e. because they would
>>> actively disagree with the 2/3.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other colleagues may of course correct and/or complement me if I
>>>>> have
>>> missed something.
>>>>>
>>>>> regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Jorge
>>>>>
>>>>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 30.01.2016 um 20:19 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig
>>> < paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com >:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> May I ask a question -- is the GAC willing to disclose the current
>>>>>> split of opinion within the GAC regarding Rec 11?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The last we heard was that the GAC had not reached consensus on the
>>>>>> question. One infers (I think infer is actually too soft a word
>>>>>> but I use it to be certain I am not overstating the case) that some
>>>>>> members of the GAC support Rec 11 as written and some do not. One
>>>>>> also suspects (though here I am less certain) that some of the GAC
>>>>>> members oppose Rec 11 because it does not go far enough (they want
>>>>>> Rec 11 plus more (e.g. removal of the consensus
>>>>>> language)) while others do not support Rec 11 because it goes too
>>>>>> far (they would be content with a majority requirement and
>>>>>> enshrining the status quo consensus rule in the bylaws).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the issues we have with the GAC is that unlike the other
>>>>>> SO/ACs it is uniquely non-transparent. That means that the voices
>>>>>> in our discussion that are the most frequent can be thought to
>>>>>> represent the GAC majority. Perhaps they are. Yet every time some
>>>>>> of the less frequent voices from GAC speak in this forum they seem
>>>>>> much less strident and committed than do the more frequent
>>>>>> participants
>>> in our discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I fear that the result of this is that we are misperceiving the
>>>>>> GAC's true intentions, or more accurately, misperceiving the actual
>>>>>> split of opinion within the GAC. To be honest, if, in fact, it
>>>>>> were the case that every country in the world save my own were
>>>>>> supporting Rec 11, I would be more inclined to relinquish my
>>>>>> objection. But my strong suspicion is that this is not the case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Put another way, some have recently said we are "disrespecting" the
>>>>>> GAC or ignoring its wishes. But, as of now its wishes are
>>>>>> radically unclear -- all it says is "we have not reached
>>>>>> consensus." In the interests of clarifying the nature of that lack
>>>>>> of consensus, would the GAC be willing to disclose its assessment
>>>>>> of the relative support for Rec 11 and the relative support for
>> objections thereto?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul Rosenzweig
>>>>>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>>>>>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>>>>>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>>>>>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>>>>>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
>>>>>> Link to my PGP Key
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton at gatech.edu]
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 1:50 PM
>>>>>> To: Malcolm Hutty < malcolm at linx.net >; Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch;
>>>>>> kdrazek at verisign.com
>>>>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sorry, Malcolm, but this is a bit too "creative."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are proposing to restructure the entire ICANN policy process
>>>>>> and to alter in a fairly fundamental way the relationship between
>>>>>> GNSO and
>>> the GAC.
>>>>>> There is a lot of merit in your idea as a general procedural
>>>>>> reform, but the point of this exercise is to create accountability
>>>>>> mechanisms that substitute for the oversight of the USG, not to
>>>>>> alter the policy development process or to redesign all of ICANN.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think Ed Morris's message was a more positive contribution that
>>>>>> points the way toward a solution.
>>>>>> The problem is not the 2/3 threshold in isolation, the problem is
>>>>>> that certain aspects of the CCWG 3rd draft, when looked at in
>>>>>> combination, are changing the role of the GAC in ways greatly
>>>>>> expand its power over the policy process, because they retain and
>>>>>> strengthen the privileges of its old role while also changing its
>>>>>> role by making it a part of the community mechanism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with Ed: if GAC is not part of the community mechanism,
>>>>>> and/or is not exempted from the same reviews as other ACs and SOs,
>>>>>> then the 2/3 threshold becomes much less of an issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with Becky's more modest proposal: if GAC is removed from
>>>>>> the community mechanism appeals that pertain to whether the board
>>>>>> follows GAC advice, then there is less worry about raising the
>>>>>> threshold for board rejection of GAC advice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we need to start from those propositions, not start
>>>>>> redesigning the policy process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --MM
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>>>>>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On
>>>>>>> Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty
>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 4:50 AM
>>>>>>> To: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch; kdrazek at verisign.com
>>>>>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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-communi
>>>>>>> t
>>>>>>> y
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit
>>>>>> y
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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/20160131/e08791f4/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list