Subgroup Members: Andrew Harris, Avri Doria, Brett Schaefer, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, David Martinon, Eric Brunner-Williams, Finn Petersen, Fiona Alexander, Greg Shatan, Izumi Okutani, Jorge Cancio, Julia Wolman, Konstantinos Komaitis, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Matthew Shears, Olga Cavalli, Paul Rosenzweig, Pedro Ivo Silva, Philip Corwin, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert, Tom Dale (22)
Guests: Elise Lindeberg, Maciej Tomaszewski
Staff: Alice Jansen, Bernie Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Trang Nguyen,
Apologies: Megan Richards (Maciej Tomaszewski will sit in for Megan), Mark Carvell
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p634a3c6e1i/
The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/accountability/ccwg-accountability-18nov15-en.mp3
These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.
MW - two documents have been distributed and can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/crxYAw
Summary from MW
- Requirement to not tell the GAC how to define consensus.
- Focus is on how the Board should deal with GAC advice
General discussion - DMartineau, PSilva, BSchaefer, JCancio, SDelBianco, PCorwin, PISilva, JCancio, Izumi,
Proposal of Board acceptance level at 97% or more support of advice by the GAC.
SDelbianco, PISilva, BSchaefer, DMartrinon,
Wrap up - MWeill - some new options are presented which could limit the number of options. We will circulate options shortly. We need to have an
additional call on this topic this week.
- MW will circulate options for ST18 for comments from this group by 23:59 today.
- Reconvene Friday this week at the same time for 90 minutes.
conclusion of call.
- DOC: 20151118 ST18 recap comparison_edits .docx | PDF: 20151118 ST18 recap comparison_edits .pdf
- DOC: 20151118 Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.docx | PDF: 20151118 Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.pdf
- DOC: GAC Doc.docx | PDF: GAC Doc.pdf
Brenda Brewer: (11/18/2015 06:33) Welcome all to ST18 Meeting #2 on 18 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
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:56) hi all
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:56) let's agree something quickly, before the rest arrives :P
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (06:56) hi all!
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (06:57) good suggestion, Jorge!
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (06:57) Steve/Fiona: are you with us?
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (06:59) It's ok with me!!!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (06:59) hi all
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (06:59) Hello everyone
Philip Corwin: (07:01) Good day from Panama
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (07:02) hello all
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (07:02) hello all!!
Konstantinos Komaitis: (07:02) hello all
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (07:02) Hej igen
Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (07:03) Hej:-)
Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (07:03) And hello all
Brett Schaefer: (07:04) Mathieu, I did not get the latest document, could you show it in the window?
Brett Schaefer: (07:05) Thx
Brenda Brewer: (07:08) The documents are posted on ST18 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/crxYAw
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (07:11) The Danish suggestion is in line with the Dublin statement
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (07:11) +1 to Pedro´s comments
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (07:13) Pedro - very positive
Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (07:13) I think it is very positive and thanks for showing flexibility
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:15) We are mindful that Julia's proposal is already a long stretch from the original GAC Dublin consensus - and I appreciate flexibility from Pedro and David in being open to consider it
matthew shears: (07:17) agree that this is a broader discussion than just is what happening in this group
Philip Corwin: (07:17) +1 to Brett's statement
Greg Shatan: (07:17) I think those should be viewed as discussions happening in this group.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:18) Mathieu did circulate a second document that shows the bracketed options from non-GAC members
Brett Schaefer: (07:19) Steve, i'm glancing through the document on screen (very tiny text). I did not recieve it for some reason.
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:19) Will move to other doc shortly Brett
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:20) It's not that document, Brett. It's the "Variations" document
Brett Schaefer: (07:20) Oh, I saw that. My impression was that this new document sperceded it.
Brett Schaefer: (07:26) +1 Steve
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:26) just as a point of clarification: the new para in the danish proposal under section 1. general, is not the original danish proposal (which should read: "Where the Board is required to seek a mutually acceptable solution to an advisory committee's advice if the Board does not follow that advice, the Board is not obliged to seek such a solution if that Advisory Committee's advice was not supported by consensus. Advisory Committees should ensure that their advice to the Board is clear").
Greg Shatan: (07:26) Bylaws don't have footnotes.
Brett Schaefer: (07:26) Even after Finn's latest e-mail, I'm still confused. What is the difference between a SuperSuperSuper Majority being consensus and objection by a very small minority in not being consensus?
Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (07:27) Thanks JOrge for pointing out was I was just about to say
Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (07:28) *what I was about to say
Avri Doria: (07:29) or statd in the inverse that no more thant 3% may dissent. so we do not determine how the vote on things. still engineering.
matthew shears: (07:29) + 1 Steve's approach
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:29) The footnote is probably a lawyers approach, while Steves %%-approach is more of an engineers, right?
Brett Schaefer: (07:29) 97% would work out to 5 objections currently (155 GAC members) and 6 if the GAC expands to entire UN membership (193).
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:30) Apologies for that mistake then (@Juli
Greg Shatan: (07:30) A lawyer wouldn't put a footnote in bylaws....
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:30) No longer any footnote Greg
Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (07:30) No problem. It can be fixed:-)
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:30) @Greg: whether footnote or something else, what matters is the idea. And btw: agreed statements are common in treaties ;-)
Greg Shatan: (07:30) But of course, these are all just instructions to counsel on how to draft the bylaws, so they will have their own input on how best to express ourselves.
Leon Sanchez: (07:30) Exactly Greg
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:31) our lawyers need more work to be done :-)
Greg Shatan: (07:31) True that different types of documents have different drafting conventions.
Brett Schaefer: (07:32) I think the 97% approach would still, potentially, place the Board in the position of choosing between GAC positions. Unanimity would be better.
Avri Doria: (07:32) Brett agree it is clearest.
Greg Shatan: (07:33) Brett, when you say "unanimity," do you mean "general agreement in the absence of any formal objection"?
Brett Schaefer: (07:33) Greg, yes
matthew shears: (07:33) agree
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:33) right, Pedro.
Greg Shatan: (07:33) Brett, thanks for clarifying.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:34) I will put it in the chat
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:34) Where the Board is required to seek a mutually acceptable solution to an advisory committee's advice if the Board does not follow that advice, the Board is not obliged to seek such a solution if that Advisory Committee's advice was not supported by consensus. Advisory Committees should ensure that their advice to the Board is clear.
Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (07:34) Thanks Pedro...
Philip Corwin: (07:35) If the consensus GAC advice is not to encompass matters that should properly be the province of a PDP then the final resolution of this matter should include such a limitation in the Bylaws
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (07:35) Brett - I used the following the words I my email ”In other words” so the two statements are equal
Brett Schaefer: (07:37) Finn, I misunderstood, but the terms are still ambiguous.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:39) exactly - what matters is the idea, whether we express it in engineer's or lawyer's jargon
Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (07:39) 3% sounds reasonable
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:39) For advice of the GAC that is approved by 97% of GAC members, the Board must achieve two-thirds majority to reject that advice. If such advice were rejected, the GAC and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.
Brett Schaefer: (07:39) Also, we seem to be ignoring the fact that current rules and practice allow GAC advice short of this threshold can obviously be sent to the Board, but existing rules should apply and the Board should be under no obligation to try to reach a compromise with the GAC (although it could and likely would).
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (07:41) A very small minority is equal to a handful – in my view
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:41) For advice of the GAC that is not opposed by more than 3% of GAC members, the Board must achieve two-thirds majority to reject that advice. If such advice were rejected, the GAC and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.
Brett Schaefer: (07:41) Sorry, I confused my point. I meant to say that even if GAC advice is not unanimous (without objection) it can still be sent to the Board.
matthew shears: (07:42) exactly Brett
matthew shears: (07:43) I think this group should present options to the CCWG nbot one position
Brett Schaefer: (07:43) I also want to highlight a point made by Keith yesterday: "Why is the CCWG now focusing on the 11th-hour introduction of the 2/3 board threshold along with flexibility to change current practice on the definition of consensus? Both of those stand to increase the influence of the GAC alone over the Board and other community groups."
Izum: (07:43) OK sure
matthew shears: (07:43) I am similarly concerned as Keith
Izum: (07:44) Thanks Steve that's very helpful to confirm
Brett Schaefer: (07:44) Keith: "No one is trying to tell the GAC how to define consensus for its internal deliberations or advice. Rather, ST-18 simply reinforces the current practice that the Board’s obligations kick in only when the GAC’s consensus is consistent with current practice – reflecting the UN definition/absence of formal objection. Any change to this practice must be viewed as empowering the GAC alone over the Board and potentially in a disproportionate way relative to others."
Brett Schaefer: (07:45) Keith:" By participating in the community mechanism as a co-equal, the GAC will be able to contribute to this joint community empowerment in a decisional way, if it chooses to do so. This is already a big change (that some are uncomfortable with) but it shows that the rest of the community respects the important role of governments and the GAC in our community processes. In my view, the CCWG should resist pressure to intentionally or inadvertently increase the relative influence of any one group, and stay focused on the joint community empowerment envisioned in our charter. This should not be an opportunity for any group to secure individual benefits they have previously been denied."
Brett Schaefer: (07:45) I put these here because they reflect other opinions that have been expressed by people outside the ST 18 group.
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:47) that's the point of this, Pedro. We aren't implying anything about how GAC defines consensus
Fiona Alexander: (07:47) As an observer - just a question to those proposing text with percentages, is the natural assumption that this somehow suggests voting in the GAC?
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (07:47) + 1 to Pedro´s comment
matthew shears: (07:47) Thanks Brett - very well articulated concerns
Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (07:48) @ Fiona No I do not make such assumption
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (07:48) +1 Jorge
Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (07:48) that makes sense to me
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (07:49) Defining outer limits makes more sense
Philip Corwin: (07:50) Good point Fiona. Ant formulatiion that includes percentages could imply voting, or could refer to number of nations voicing formal objection.
Brett Schaefer: (07:51) I do not agree with the 97% proposal. Only GAC advice approved without any objection should get the 2/3rds rejection threshold. GAC can send non-unanimous advice to the Board, but the majority rejection rule should apply.
matthew shears: (07:51) + 1 Brett
Paul Rosenzweig: (07:51) Sorry to be late to the party ...
Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (07:52) Exactly Mathieu!
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:52) I'm all against voting -
Philip Corwin: (07:52) In either event, I personally think the concern in US Congress will be that what is being proposed for the Bylaws would make it more difficult for Board to reject advice from GAC on a public policy matter in which the US was one of the nations objecting.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:52) % or minorities would refer to objections
Avri Doria: (07:54) Jorge, using the 3% figure for opposition avoids voting. It is similar to the current rule, except it takes more that just 1 country objecting. the other 97% can remain silent, as they might do now.
Paul Rosenzweig: (07:55) +1 Brett
matthew shears: (07:55) agree w/ Brett
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (07:55) agree Avri: I feel we can combine the consensus building model with such a % approach to define the maximum level of objections for calling a level of support as "consensus" which would trigger the 2/3
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:56) +1 Avri. GCA chair just asks if any GAC members object to a draft advice. If more than 3% object, that won't get the special treatment from Board
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (07:57) + 1 to David´s comments
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (07:57) Agree with David
Elise Lindeberg - GAC: (07:57) +1 - David
matthew shears: (07:58) Don't agree with the die in the ditch approach - this group should propose options to the CCWG a number of which have been discussed today
Philip Corwin: (07:59) Yes, this group should define the issues and options, not decide them. Full CCWG should make fiunal decisions
Paul Rosenzweig: (07:59) Thomas -- good question. My answer is "yes" I will die in the ditch to prevent what I perceive as an increase in GAC authority over ICANN. It is a fundamental redline. My bottom line is that I can live with an action forcing mecahism that requires the Board to negotiate. I cannot accept a proposal that allows a non-full consnesus advice to become the rule in the absence of a 2/3 Board majority rejecting that advice. If non-full-consensus + 2/3 vote to reject is in the proposal, it will be a non-starter for me under all circumstances.
Brett Schaefer: (08:00) I think we should default to the status quo unless we reach broad agreement on change.
matthew shears: (08:00) tha has been the approach to date Brett - yes
Brett Schaefer: (08:00) +1 Paul
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:00) for instance: "It is understood that determining consensus does not include reaching a decision based on majority voting whereby a fundamental disagreement with or objections to the advice by a minority of the AC representatives may be overridden. It is also understood that “consensus” does not necessarily mean “unanimity” or a broad measure of agreement that would allow an AC member or a very small minority of AC members (not bigger than a X% of the members of the AC) to block consensus advice."
Philip Corwin: (08:01) Before call ends, want to again reiterate that Board should never be compelled to accept GAC advice rekating to a matter that is properly the subject of a PDP because effect would be to create consensus policy for contracted parties
Paul Rosenzweig: (08:01) FWIW, on the merits, I tend to think that percentages are not helpful. They reduce flexibility and imply voting in the GAC. As a substantive matter I would not numericize the definition of consensus
Greg Shatan: (08:02) Phil, hasn't that already happened?
Greg Shatan: (08:02) We could use "very small number" instead of a percentage....
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:02) @Greg: that is what Julia proposed
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:03) "very small minority" is the wording proposed by Julia
Brett Schaefer: (08:03) Greg, too ambiguous
Greg Shatan: (08:03) Understood... I tend to prefer it, if we can remove the ambiguity...
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:03) perhaps we can include the % in the rationale if people do not want it in the text?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (08:03) until Friday then... bye for now, talk again soon, thanks everyone.....
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (08:04) bye
Avri Doria: (08:04) bye
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (08:04) thanks
Leon Sanchez: (08:04) thanks everyone
Brett Schaefer: (08:04) If GAC approves advice over objections of China, India,, Brazil, Nigeria, US -- would that be legitimate?
Konstantinos Komaitis: (08:04) bye
Izum: (08:04) thanks all
matthew shears: (08:04) thanks
Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (08:04) bye
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:04) thanks and till friday