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

["Paul McGrady \(Policy\)" <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1 to much of what Ed said.  Transition should not be used to enhance
government authority.

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Edward Morris
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 1:08 PM
To: James M. Bladel; WUKnoben; Phil Corwin; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Drazek,
Keith
Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT

 

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 <mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>  

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

To: Phil Corwin <mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>  ; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>  

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