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

[Johan Helsingius <julf@xxxxxxxx>]

Ed,

Thank you for expressing my concerns much more clearly and eloquently
than I managed to.

        Julf


On 21/01/16 20:08, 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 <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> 
> on
> behalf of WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
> *Reply-To: *WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
> *Date: *Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 11:51
> *To: *Edward Morris <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>>, Phil
> Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO Council List
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
>