Attendees:
Subgroup Members: Andrew Harris, Avri Doria, Brett Schaefer, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, David Martinon, Delila Rahmouni, Finn Petersen, Fiona Alexander, Greg Shatan, Keith Drazek, Konstantinos Komaitis, Jorge Cancio, Julia Wolman, Leon Sanchez, Mark Carvell, Markus Kummer, Mathieu Weill, Matthew Shears, Megan Richards, Nick Shorey, Olga Cavalli, Pär Brumark, Pedro Ivo Silva, Philip Corwin, Rafael Perez Galindo, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Schneider, Tom Dale
Staff: Alice Jansen, Bernie Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abhuamad, Tarek Kamel, Theresa Swinehart,
Apologies: Izumi Okutani, Paul Rosenzweig
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Transcript
Recording
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8cnao8qa2h/
The audio recording is available here:
Agenda
Notes
Documents
- DOC: 20151120 Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.docx | PDF: 20151120 Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.pdf
- Finn Petersen.pdf
- Brett S..pdf
Adobe Chat
Brenda Brewer: (11/20/2015 06:46) Good day and welcome to ST18 Subgroup Meeting #3 on 20 November 2015 @ 13:00 UTC! Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards
Brenda Brewer: (06:46) Document is posted on ST18 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/crxYAw
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:59) hi all
Pär Brumar (GAC Niue): (06:59) Hi!
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (06:59) hello all
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina 2: (06:59) Hello all! it is Friday :)
Markus Kummer: (07:00) Hi all
Keith Drazek: (07:00) Hi all. I have to drop from the call after about 45 minutes.
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (07:00) Hi all
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (07:01) Hi all
Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (07:01) Hello all
Matthew Shears: (07:01) hi
Greg Shatan: (07:02) Hello, everybody!
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (07:03) Hello all - are we all ready to nail this issue?!
Brett Schaefer: (07:04) Sorry to be late.
Brenda Brewer: (07:05) David Martinon joins audio only.
Keith Drazek: (07:08) Phil Corwin needs a call-out. He just posted to the ST18 list.
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (07:08) Very helpful contribution from Brett.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:11) . In this context, each Advisory Committee has the right to determine its particular definition of consensus.” ]
Philip Corwin: (07:12) I have not received my promised call out to Panama and therefore have no phone connection
Keith Drazek: (07:14) Is staff calling out to Phil, per his request?
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (07:14) Thanks, Mathieu and Brett
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:14) I believe we should focus on how the board must handle GAC advice. Section 2, item 1, j
Philip Corwin: (07:15) thx Keith
Brenda Brewer: (07:16) Phil Corwin has joined audio only
Philip Corwin: (07:17) I am in chat room...until hotel Internet crashes again ð
Megan Richards European Commission: (07:19) apologies was on Greek time. now back in Brussels and on call. sorry for delay
Matthew Shears: (07:19) + 1 with the thrust of Greg's concerns
Keith Drazek: (07:21) Correct Brett. As I said in my email yesterday, the RySG shares the concerns expressed by Greg and the IPC, among others.
Megan Richards European Commission: (07:25) so can alternate proposals be developed subject to the different potential outcomes as GAC has not taken a position on how it should participate if at all in the community mechanism yet
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (07:25) Agree with Mathieu...all other decisions should be made within the CCWG and assessed by the Chartering Organizations
Keith Drazek: (07:27) @Pedro: All of these decisions will be made within the CCWG and assessed by the COs, including resolution on ST18. This group will only make recommendations.
Megan Richards European Commission: (07:27) +1 @ Jorge !!!
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina 2: (07:27) + 1 to Jorge´s comments
Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (07:27) +1 Jorge
Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (07:27) +10 Jorge!
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (07:27) +1 Jorge
Greg Shatan: (07:30) Regrettably, I do not share Jorge's view that the IPC's criteria are being addressed.
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (07:30) @Keith: Agreed. So let us consider discussion about the decison-making process in the CCWG wide call.
Brett Schaefer: (07:31) I think the group should present options to the CCWG as Mattew suggested.
Greg Shatan: (07:31) This does not come out of any disaffection for the GAC. It would be unfortunate to imply that it does.
Keith Drazek: (07:31) Agreed. We will need to include a range of options for consideration by the CCWG, taking into account the decisions that are outside the mandate of this group.
Avri Doria: (07:31) I regret the oppostional tone these discussions have taken. And much of the rhetoric does indicate disaffection or worse.
Greg Shatan: (07:32) It is unfortunate that some have taken that tone. But that should not taint the concerns of those that have not taken that tone.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:33) I hope that I have expressed myself appropiately: consensus is my goal and my intended tone and we are working very hard for it
Greg Shatan: (07:34) I think if the 2/3 request was withdrawn, we could make great process quickly.
Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (07:34) We do understand the concerns
Keith Drazek: (07:35) The introduction of the 2/3 issue was certainly not an evolution of the previous proposals. It is a departure from the work of the last year. Agree with Steve here.
Matthew Shears: (07:35) Agree - very hard to justify why we would be reintroducing this when it was rejected by the community last year
Avri Doria: (07:37) Matthew, much more is on the table than just the 2/3 that was rejected in the past. the number may be the same, but the context has changed.
Matthew Shears: (07:37) not sure Acri
Matthew Shears: (07:37) Avri
Avri Doria: (07:37) i knew you meant me.
Brett Schaefer: (07:38) This is the default from the 2nd draft -- "j: The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. With respect to Governmental Advisory Committee advice that is supported by consensus, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution."
Greg Shatan: (07:38) The context has changed for all, not just the GAC.
Avri Doria: (07:38) Greg, my point was that this was not the same discussion as was had years ago.
Greg Shatan: (07:38) OK, thanks.
Keith Drazek: (07:39) I unfortunately have to leave the call for another unavoidable commitment. I will just point back to my comments submitted via email over the last few days. As I noted previously, the GAC wants 3 new powers: (1) community mechanism, (2) two-thirds threshold, (3) redefining consensus per Board obligations. There are going to have to be tough choices among those three "wants" to avoid unduly empowering the GAC over others.
Avri Doria: (07:39) so having rejected it in the past does not mean we must reject it for ever more.
Matthew Shears: (07:39) + 1 Keith
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:39) dear all - I haven't heard substantive arguments why or to what extent we are not addressing the concerns some in the community expressed in 2014
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:40) - 2/3 are linked to a commitment of consensus- as in Julia's text, that consensus is bound to very stringent requirements- the Mission of ICANN is being narrowed- any action of ICANN outside the mission is actionable through an IRP, including actions which come as a result of an AC advice- almost any relevant action which is disliked by the community can be subject to community powers- a need for clear rationale is provided for AC advice
Avri Doria: (07:40) perhaps a fair trade off is for the GAC to retain UN defintion of consensus (or even ITU defintion) and get the 2/3 rejection of full advice.
Keith Drazek: (07:41) I agree Avri. Isn't that what Brett suggested yesterday?
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:41) @Avri: that is part of what Brett proposed, but it leaves us with no flexibility
Keith Drazek: (07:41) You have flexibility for defining consensus, just not for Board obligations.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (07:41) fully agree with you here Thomas, unanimous or no objection GAC advice
Avri Doria: (07:42) the flexibilty is in the advice given without full consensus only needing a moajority rejection.
Brett Schaefer: (07:42) Keith, yes. I have concerns about GAC role in the CM that would impact my support, however.
Keith Drazek: (07:43) I support Thomas' suggestions for further discussion.
Avri Doria: (07:43) Brett, you make a good point, especially if combined with the new rule that is being considered about an SO needing to agree with Cu=ommunity action based on its recommendations. If this were applied to the GAC as well, the combinatorial effect might be problematic.
Keith Drazek: (07:44) The combinational effect IS a concern, as I highlighted in my list of 3 wants.
Brett Schaefer: (07:44) The Draft 2 proposal was that GAC advice was rejected by majority of the Board AND only unanimous GAC advice would trigger the Boards obligation to try and find a mututally agreeable solution. Thi sdicussion has move very far towad the GAC proposal.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:44) @Keith: will the other AC/SO will forced to choose? that is not a sensible way to argie, I'm afraid
Avri Doria: (07:45) i do not think it a great problem in the basic case. only think so if the rule about special prov for the maker of recommendations is extended to the giver of advice.
Avri Doria: (07:45) we need more that 1 to stop Community action.
Keith Drazek: (07:45) The other SO/AC don't have special advisory status with the Board, Jorge. Apples and oranges, I'm afraid.
Keith Drazek: (07:46) I welcome the GAC in the community mechanism, for the record.
Avri Doria: (07:46) we have speciial recommendatory pwoers.
Megan Richards European Commission: (07:46) but there is no obligation for ICANN board to implement GAC advice if no mutually agreeable solution is found. the two parties are to try to find such a solution
Avri Doria: (07:46) maybe apples and oranges, but both fruit juices.
Keith Drazek: (07:46) lol
Keith Drazek: (07:47) apologies have to run
Brett Schaefer: (07:47) @Keith, I welcome the GAC in teh CM as well ... as an advisory body, not a voting one.
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (07:47) @Keith: Why is it a concern, especially considering that other ACSOs have even greater means to influence decision-making in ICANN (e.g. seat in the Board, seat in the NomCom) that the GAC does not have?
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:47) @Keith: the SO have something more than just advisory functions (albeit special we may call them) and the GAC accepts that - why do we question the GAC role continuously?
Avri Doria: (07:48) i still do not see the CM as a voting mechansims. I think that we lose its pwoer and signifiucance if it becomes a voting mechansim.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:48) +1 Avri
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (07:48) +1 Avri
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (07:48) Thomas @Building on Bretts suggestion, here is a proposal DK II, as a compromis
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (07:49) “The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any GAC advice approved by a GAC consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Board. Any advice approved by the GAC with objections from a very small minority of GAC members, but falling short of consensus, may be rejected by a majority vote of the Board. In both instances, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. Governmental Advisory Committee should ensure that their
Matthew Shears: (07:49) I think that hte options that we are discussing should be put to the broader group
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (07:51) should ensure that THE REST advice to the Board is clear.”
Greg Shatan: (07:51) Finn: Did you mean to say the following in the second sentence:
Greg Shatan: (07:51) Any advice approved by the GAC with objections from a very small minority of GAC members, but falling short of GAC consensus,
Greg Shatan: (07:51) (inserting GAC before the last "consensus")
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (07:51) Denmark's proposal merits consideration - it distinguishes between absolute consensus requiring 2/3 to be rejected and broad-based consensus requiring majority rejection. It reverts back to the ealrier exchnage on this call.
Brett Schaefer: (07:52) FInn, that looks like my compromise text plus the addition of the clear advice part at the end?
Thomas Rickert: (07:52) I agree, Brett.
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (07:53) Have been sent out as a mail
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:54) we would need to look very carefully into this Brett+Finn proposal - it may be too unflexible
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (07:54) Agree with Pedro.
Greg Shatan: (07:54) So, GAC advice at the current threshold of consensus requires a higher threshold to reject. And GAC advice approved by a lower threshold requires the current threshold to reject. I'm not seeing the compromise.
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (07:54) +1 to Pedros´s comments
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:54) although we will keep up the constructive spirit of course
Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (07:54) DK 2 proposal is a major concession for many governments. . Pls take that into account....
Thomas Schneider (GAC): (07:55) @greg: It would be a big compromise for many GAC members to give up the flexibility that they currently have on defining consensus as this is not in the bylaws.
Thomas Rickert: (07:56) Greg, this is what ST18 is all about.
Keith Drazek: (07:57) My other meeting got pushed back 30 min, so I'm back.
Brett Schaefer: (07:57) I think this would be teh compromise Greg is seeking?
Brett Schaefer: (07:57) The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any GAC advice approved by a GAC consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection, may only be rejected by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) a majority of the Board. Any advice approved by the GAC with objections from a very small minority of GAC members, but falling short of consensus, may be rejected by a majority a 1/3 minority vote of the Board. In both instances, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. Governmental Advisory Committee sh
Matthew Shears: (07:57) how is "a very small minority" being defined?
Thomas Rickert: (07:57) If you want to say you want something back, it is exactly that the Communtiy gets assurance the Baord does not need to react to anything the GAC might define as consensus in future, which could be simple majority without any quorum requiements
Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (07:57) good Keith we are at critical points in our deliberations
Brett Schaefer: (07:57) should ensure that their advice to the Board is clear.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (07:58) time frames are indeed an issue here as well
Keith Drazek: (07:59) I stepped away for 5 minutes and DK2 (Brett+Finn) looks pretty good. Maybe I should leave more often....
Brett Schaefer: (07:59) Sorry, strike through did not translate. I think Greg would prefer majority rejection of consensus GAC advice and minority vote rejection of non-consensus GAC advice.
Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (08:01) +1 Jorge. DK 2 leaves the GAC subject to capture. This is dangerous and we could regret in the futuro. That is why I say this propos l is a major concession from many governments.
Keith Drazek: (08:01) How would the GAC be subject to capture?
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (08:02) Please add "advice to the Board is clear.” in the end of the text in the screen
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:02) by losing our flexibility, we risk creating the wrong incentives for single delegates or very small minorities
Megan Richards European Commission: (08:02) but Steve in your scenario would it not be more likely that at least one or more gay members would lodge formal objections I think
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (08:02) Broad-based consensus does not require 2/3 = a compromise element. We may in future have situations where one or three governments do not support a broad GAC position - in a committee already increased to 155 members this is a possibility. Tricky but we need to retain our flexibility of defining consensus.
Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (08:02) Just 1 country could prevent consensus advice
Greg Shatan: (08:03) That is currently the case, is it not?
Megan Richards European Commission: (08:03) sorry that should be GAC members not gay members !!
Thomas Schneider (GAC): (08:04) Mark's point is very relevant: the GAC has grown significantly since the last rework of the operating principles.
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (08:05) Very hestiatn to tak numbes but I would expect over 6 substantive fundamental GAC objections probably means no broad consensus so no advice. We woudl strve nonethelss to accommdoate thsoe objectiosn in order to acheive broad consensus if not absolute consensus.
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (08:07) Brett@ Now you are modified your own text
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:08) Once again: we will need to look into this very carefully, as it goes perhaps beyond GAC Dublin. We need a timeframe to finalize this discussion
Keith Drazek: (08:08) The RySG does not support the introduction of 2/3, but in the interest of building consensus, I support continued work on the Finn/Brett evolving language.
Thomas Rickert: (08:09) Thanks, Keith. I would encourage others to join you in doing so.
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (08:10) @keith - appreciate that spirit of cooperative interaction.
Matthew Shears: (08:10) I agree that 2nd report language should still be considered
Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (08:10) This proposal likely overtakes GAC Dublin communique. We cannot commit to the acceptance of the GAC as a whole either
Megan Richards European Commission: (08:11) ditto others re Keith's offer
Keith Drazek: (08:12) @Rafael: The GAC as a whole hasn't accepted the negotiating positions some GAC members have taken in these discussions. Totally understand the formal requirements for SO/AC approval that is yet to come.
Matthew Shears: (08:14) Mathieu - v2 text should be the fallback scenario and included as such
Brett Schaefer: (08:14) +1 Matthew
Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (08:14) @Keith, thank you for your constructive attitude
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:14) Could not accept this new variation by Brett
Keith Drazek: (08:15) Apologies, I need to run.
Brett Schaefer: (08:15) The reason for this is that the Board should not be put in the position of negotiating between various GAC members. It should be up to the GAC to present a consensus position before the Board should be required to try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.
Greg Shatan: (08:15) I could accept this new variation by Brett.
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (08:15) - suggest fallign short of "abolute consensus" as makign clear differentiation from "broad consensus" - i.e. all is in direction of consensus.
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (08:16) +1 to Jorge´s comments
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (08:18) Brett@ we must stick to your own words ". In both instances"
Greg Shatan: (08:18) What about keeping the mutually acceptable solution requirement for lower threshold advice, but requiring a lower threshold than majority of the Board to reject it?
Thomas Schneider (GAC): (08:18) maybe we do actually have 3 levels of GAC advice:
Thomas Schneider (GAC): (08:18) 1. no consensus
Thomas Schneider (GAC): (08:18) 2. consensus (i.e. broad support)
Thomas Schneider (GAC): (08:18) 3. full consensus (unainimity)
Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (08:19) @Greg. That is DK 2 proposal, ain't it?
Thomas Schneider (GAC): (08:20) i would just note that the GAC will always strive to go for 3: full consensus. this is what we will continue to reach anyway
Thomas Schneider (GAC): (08:20) sorry: continue to try to reach...
Greg Shatan: (08:20) I didn't think DK2 contemplated a "lower than majority" vote to reject -- in other words, it would require a majority to accept such advice.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:21) @Brett: in the end this would impose on the GAC a completely unflexible threshold for consensus. This is clearly not constructive and non-workable
Brett Schaefer: (08:22) Why Jorge? The GAc could still offer non-consesnus advice.
Greg Shatan: (08:22) What about increasing the majority by 1 vote instead of 2 votes?
Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (08:22) @Greg, sorry. Lower than majority to reject??
Greg Shatan: (08:22) Yes, in other words, a majority to accept.
Greg Shatan: (08:23) To clarify, what about a compromise between simple majority and 2/3 supermajority?
Greg Shatan: (08:23) For "GAC consensus" advice.
Greg Shatan: (08:23) By going to the number that would equal 1 above a majority instead of 2, to reject GAC advice.
Greg Shatan: (08:24) Just looking for compromises...
Thomas Rickert: (08:25) NO, you did excellently
Leon Sanchez: (08:26) nothing to add Mathieu
Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (08:27) +1 Jorge
Matthew Shears: (08:27) These discussions have been important and valuable - no matter the outcome
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (08:27) `1 to jorge
Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (08:28) let's look to Monday then, talk more then, but time is very much against us here unless we find compromise....
Philip Corwin 2: (08:28) Bye all
Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (08:28) bye for now...
Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (08:28) Bye and thank you
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (08:28) bye have a nice weekend
Greg Shatan: (08:28) Ah, well, my last suggestion did not get any reaction....
Brett Schaefer: (08:28) Thank you, Mathieu. Bye all.
Greg Shatan: (08:28) I will put it on list.
Matthew Shears: (08:28) thanks
Markus Kummer: (08:28) Bye all
Greg Shatan: (08:28) Bye all!
Megan Richards European Commission: (08:28) let's use the weekend to reflect and come back with good progress on Monday
Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (08:28) Bye all
Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (08:28) Thx all! Bye!
Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (08:28) and thanks
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (08:28) Bye
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:29) bye
Thomas Rickert: (08:29) Thanks Mathieu, Bye all
