[CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11
CW Mail
mail at christopherwilkinson.eu
Sun Jan 31 15:11:28 UTC 2016
Well, Paul, the normal déontology of public officials in an international context, would not give rise to the information that you are seeking.
Except perhaps after a conclusion had been reached, if then.
CW
On 31 Jan 2016, at 02:54, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160131/3a4ff8b8/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list