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   (28)

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

• Transcript ST18_20 November.docx
• Transcript ST18_20 November.pdf
  

Recording

• The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8cnao8qa2h/

• The audio recording is available here:   http://audio.icann.org/accountability/ccwg-accountability-20nov15-en.mp3

Notes

These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.

Recap of last call: discussions regarding the potential for a definition of consensus which would include percentages or accounts within the GAC

Paper from Denmark was recirculated with comments, one being on rejection threshold for Board in case it acts in a manner that is inconsistent with GAC advice. Initial proposed approach was 2;3. Variant of a staggered approach was suggested: GAC advice would be supported by a consensus as currently defined in the Operating Principle 47, and could only be rejected by a 2/3 majority of the Board if it was consensus advice. If not according to that definition, a simple majority would be required from the Board.

Discussion: 

• Sentence in the original proposal from Denmark after the end of this first paragraph in red, which stated that in this context each advisory committee has a right to determine its particular definition of consensus, is missing. After this sentence, we would include the text that appears in the second red paragraph which indicates borders, limits to that definition of consensus.

--> No intent to contradict the statement that each advisory committee has the right to determine definition of consensus

• Footnote does not clarify what consensus is. Preference for keeping existing text in Bylaws and focus on changes, if any are adopted.
• Do not give narrow definitions of consensus. If we fix it in Bylaws, it will be difficult to change it after that.
• Consider minimum conditions for considering anything greater than a majority vote by the Board in considering GAC advice: 1) It would have to be what we termed GAC consensus advice; 2) It would have to be consistent with ICANN's accountability and transparency; ) There would need to be a written rationale for advice. Statements of requirement of rationale would be necessary; 4) Would need certification that the GAC advice does not contravene any national or international law or treaty. In terms of the IPC’s concerns about moving upward from the majority approval in exchange for basically a commitment to the status quo these would be as the minimum conditions at this point ICG would be be prepared to accept. Moving above the majority for any reason still raises great concern, the commitment to the status quo on one side should require nothing more than commitment to the status quo on the other side.
• It is hard to endorse a compromise without knowing if GAC is going to or is not going to participate in the community mechanism or not. GAC would have an unacceptable increase in it authority if it votes to participate in the community mechanism and has the ability to offer advice in a preferential fashion to the Board. Co-Chairs should reach out to the various constituencies to identify whether they are going to fully participate or not. The only recourse for the community to oppose GAC advice and oppose by a majority of the Board is to exercise community powers. If the GAC is going to be participating in the community mechanism that makes reaching various thresholds to exercise those powers much, much more difficult. It is a critical part of our equation.
• Against general premise of considering the GAC as a danger or as a sort of problem for the community. Change the approach. The 2/3 rule is linked to a commitment of consensus. All the points that Greg made in his email and which stem from the IPR constituency back in 2014 are being addressed.
• There is a distance between the definition of consensus that is highlighted - that was highlighted by Greg as the current definition of Operating Principles 47 and the definition that was provided in the footnote by Julia and Denmark. 
• We need language that is stronger – Denmark language is ambiguous. If you want to raise the ante to 2/3, something more has to be required of the GAC in reaching advice that merits a 2/3 consideration
• We can't move forward on a proposal until we agree that consensus is absence of formal objection.
• A 2/3 majority might have a very high symbolic impact on the GAC’s role. But if the 2/3 is important to bridge the gap why not keep it for the instances where GAC advice is unanimous. We need to find a solution for that.
• It would be important to accept that without any kind of consultation process or a majority plus one is opposed seems like that advice has been somewhat forced on the Board in such a way rejection is not rejection but only a due deference process.  If a super majority, but not 2/3, of the board wished to reject the GAC advice, it would not be rejected but it would be accepted without any consultation process even though most of the Board was against it. 
• We could reestablish the balance. For instance: if 1/3 of Board is against following GAC advice, the Board can request a consultation. 
• The mutually agreeable solution process is triggered when the GAC advice is supported by consensus but without mentioning anything about how this consensus is assessed.

Finn Petersen's proposed language:

“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 THE REST advice to the Board is clear."

Discussion:

• This goes in the right direction.
• The Board would require to meet a higher threshold to reject GAC advice given that the current thresholds of consensus and the Board’s current threshold to reject GAC advice would be applied to GAC advice with a lower threshold of consensus.
• We would need to know what is the timeframe in order to be able to look into this very carefully because after all as you all know the GAC called for flexibility, for autonomy of advisory committees in refining their definition of consensus. 
• Approach is promising but needs wordsmithing. Suggestion to drop the very small minority language and go to any non-consensus advice approved by the GAC or something similar. Concerned that in the future a GAC might decide to initiate its own advice independent of any ongoing ICANN process on -- regarding a public policy matter and that would have the potential to what the GAC in effect initiate a form of a policy development process outside of the normal GNSO process. This language has elements of compromise. 
• Concern that the obligation of the board, to try and reach out to the GAC and trying to (face) in a timely efficient manner to find a mutually acceptable solution should only be the case on consensus device and not on non-consensus device and that if the Board rejects non-consensus devices up to the GAC to negotiate amongst itself its own members and then trying to reach a resolution to find a consensus and only in that case would the GAC have to negotiate with the Board if the advice is rejected.
• We have agreement on each and every advisory committee ensures that the advice provided is clear and reflects the consensus view of the committee.
• Second threshold  is the same threshold as what's included in Denmark's original proposal. That threshold was intended to trigger two-thirds of the Board and the mutually accepted solution.
• Important for members to go back to their constituencies and weigh the support with this new text before we move forward. The Board should be put in a position of negotiating between various GAC members. It should be up to the GAC to negotiate internally, find a consensus position and if the Board still had an objection to that advice then it would enter into negotiations with the GAC to try and find a mutually acceptable solution.

Follow-up call to held on Monday at 14:00 UTC

Documents

• DOC:  20151120 Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.docx   |   PDF:  20151120 Variations on Common Ground proposal for ST18.pdf
• PDF:  Finn Petersen.pdf
  
• 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 😁

  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