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

Sun Jan 31 16:14:57 UTC 2016

I agree with Milton.

I think it would be prudent to offer a series of "option packages" and take
a "binary vote" on objection to each of them.

I think the results could help illuminate our path forward, at the very
least.

There are a few clear option packages that have emerged since the third
draft, and perhaps a few recombination that might be useful to consider as
well.  Building consensus is an iterative process. I suggest we make use
of our recent work rather than discarding it.

Greg

On Sunday, January 31, 2016, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:

> I agree with Avri. My reading is that there is currently not consensus on
> Rec 11.
>
> However, you may also want to make the options clearer. I see a lot of
> people saying, "I could accept Rec 11 if [this or that small change was
> made]. How does the polling account for that? If this is a binary vote,
> ONLY yes or no, I am pretty sure you won't get consensus on Rec 11.
>
> --MM
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > 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?
> >
> > avri
> >
> > 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 <javascript:;> <mailto:
> acct-staff at icann.org <javascript:;>>.
> > >
> > >
> > > *                             *
> > >
> > >
> > >                 *
> > >
> > > 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 <javascript:;>
> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-
> > Community at icann.org <javascript:;>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <javascript:;>
> 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/20160131/905d5f88/attachment.html>