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

["Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Fully agree with Ed cumulative analysis and its probable result.

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
On 21 Jan 2016, at 13:08, Edward Morris wrote:

> 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