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

["Edward Morris" <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>]

 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 6:32 PM
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "WUKnoben" 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx" <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>, 
"Phil Corwin" <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 1:01 PM
To: WUKnoben; egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx; Phil Corwin; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 11:51
To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>, Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO 
Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ;  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