[council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT

Thu Jan 21 19:08:07 UTC 2016

 Hi Keith,

 I think for a few of us it is not so much recommendation 11 itself that generates concern (although I feel compelled to point out that recommendation 11 was adopted in a straw poll in  a call with a higher than normal percentage of GAC members, and has been opposed by nearly a 2-1 margin in public comments) but rather the combination of recommendations 1, 10 and 11 that causes concern. 

 Recommendation 1 allows the GAC to fully participate in the community mechanism on equal terms with the other SOACs.

 Recommendation 10 allows the GAC to avoid the accountability reviews other SOACs are subject to.

 Recommendation 11 not only allows the GAC to maintain its special advisory role but increases the weight it must be given.

 It has been a principle tenet of the NTIA that governments not use the transition to increase their power within the ICANN ecosystem.

 There are many ways to massage this but the fact remains that if these three recommendations are adopted:

 1. For the first time ever the GAC will have input into Board composition,

 2. For the first time ever the GAC will have a direct say in policy development and retention or overturn of policy  as part of the community,

 3. Yet the GAC will not be subject to the same accountability oversight as other parts of the community,

 4. While not only maintaining but increasing its privileged advisory role to the Board.

 I can safely say that it is this combination of recommendations that is absolutely unacceptable to the noncommercial community and any repositioning or repackaging is not going to work.

 While I now, and I believe my SG will, certainly support the fine suggestions made by RySG and the BC, and thank you for your work, they do not address the principle problem which is the effect the combination of these recommendations has on GAC power.

 Regarding recommendation 11, I also feel compelled to point out that the community rejected the proposed increase of the threshold for the Board to override GAC advice just over a year ago ( https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en). This sort of double dipping, hostage taking ( "give us what we want or you do not get the transition, even though you just rejected what we want" ), is not only unseemly but represents exactly that which many of us fear: An ICANN where governments use their considerable power and strength to override the community process.

 It's about more than 2/3. It's about the integrity and sustainability of a true bottom up multi-stakeholder governance model. My stakeholder group wants this transition, I want this transition, but not at all costs.

 Best,

 Ed Morris 

----------------------------------------
 From: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at Verisign.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 6:32 PM
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, "egmorris1 at toast.net" <egmorris1 at toast.net>, "Phil Corwin" <psc at vlaw-dc.com>, "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT   

Thanks all. A couple of observations:  

1.       The RySG and BC indicated a willingness to support the 2/3 threshold IF certain other terms were included, so it's not accurate to say everyone in the GNSO does not support 2/3 at all. We may not support the proposal as currently written, but that doesn't mean 2/3 won't receive some support pending incorporation of those recommended changes.  

2.       The current definition of GAC consensus is their current operating procedure, but that definition IS OPEN TO CHANGE BY THE GAC at any time. Incorporating that definition into the bylaws is brand new, and it is the other half of the ST-18 package (with the 2/3 threshold).  

As we discuss Recommendation 11, everyone should remember that the 2/3 threshold (an increase of two Board votes) was a tradeoff for getting the GAC consensus definition incorporated  into the bylaws. The latter point is an NTIA requirement. If we think we can be successful in eliminating 2/3 while incorporating the GAC consensus definition into the bylaws, great, but there's a risk to the CCWG and IANA transition in doing so.  

I think a question for everyone is, "Could you support the 2/3 language IF the additional requirements demanded by the RySG and BC are included in the next CCWG report?"  

Regards,  

Keith  

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 1:01 PM
To: WUKnoben; egmorris1 at toast.net; Phil Corwin; council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT 

Hi all - 

Great thread on this, and Rec #11 is definitely an area of focus for our response, so we want to be clear. 

If memory serves, our position on this Recommendation was more nuanced than "support" or "opposed."  Most SG/C comments noted the 2/3rds vote of the Board requirement to reject GAC advice as a deal-breaker.  Some SGs and Cs (BC and RySG, I believe) said they did support other components of Rec #11, specifically the definition of GAC Consensus as Lacking Formal Objection. 

Stichting these together, our response would appear to be broad opposition to the 2/3rds vote threshold, and support/non-opposition to keep the current definition of GAC Consensus. In effect, the GNSO wants to preserve the status quo on both points. 

Have I got that straight?  If so, we need to wordsmith this in to our Rec #11 response so it is clear to the CCWG Co-Chairs. 

Thanks- 

J. 

From: <owner-council at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Date: Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 11:51
To: Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT 

Hi Ed, 

as you implicitly express the accurate wording here is important. And I, too, like to see and understand the statement reflecting accurately the GNSO's status. 

Maybe it's just an issue of how I understand the word "overall" with my limited English. To me it means "covering or including all and everything". If this is the meaning then "overall" is misplaced here. 

How about "broadly" or "at large". 

I'm sure English natives are inventive to find something where we can all agree on. So calling for a vote on just this recommendation might not help us to make progress. 

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich 

From: Edward Morris  

Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 6:15 PM 

To: Phil Corwin ;  council at gnso.icann.org ;  WUKnoben  

Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT 

Hi Wolf-Ulrich, 

- Rec#11: There are concerns with the first statement: "The GNSO overall does not support this recommendation." This should be deleted. 

I disagree. 

I believe that statement accurately depicts the current state of play within the GNSO and would be of great value to the CCWG chairs. If there is a belief that this statement is inaccurate I would ask that a vote be taken using the simple majority threshold and that this statement be deleted only if it is shown that the GNSO does support recommendation 11. 

Thanks, 

Ed Morris

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20160121/54de3055/attachment.html>