Attendees:
Subgroup Members: Arun Sukumar, Asha Hemrajani, Avri Doria, Brett Schaefer, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Dalila Rahmouni, Edward Morris, Elise Lindeberg, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Fiona Alexander, Greg Shatan, Izumi Okutani, Jorge Cancio, Julia Wolman, Keith Drazek, Konstantinos Komaitis, Lousewies van der Laan, Mark Carvell, Markus Kummer, Mathieu Weill, Matthew Shears, Megan Richards, Olga Cavalli, Pär Brumark, Paul Rosenzweig, Pedro Ivo Silva, Philip Corwin, Rafael Perez Galindo, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Ron da Silva, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert, Thomas Schneider, Tom Dale (36)
Staff: Alice Jansen, Bernie Turcotte, Brenda Brewer
Apologies: Leon Sanchez
**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/p5r2es9u13u/
The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/accountability/ccwg-accountability-23nov15-en.mp3
Notes
LInk to ST18 docs: https://community.icann.org/x/crxYAw
These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.
4th and last call of the ST18 sub-group - Mathew Weill chairing.
MW - Task of the group is to report to the CCWG with options wrt ST18 discussion for inclusion in the 3rd draft report of the CCWG which is
to be published on November 30th
Currently the two options are:
- The European GAC Member's proposal which is a clarification of the Denmark/Finn Petersen proposal
- The text that was published in the 2nd draft of the CCWG.
There were several variations/amendments on these published over the weekend from Brett Schaeffer, Phil Corwin and others.
Discussion of the requirement for a clear rationale for a GAC recommendation.
MW - Rationale requirement is general
ly agreed. Clarity should similarly be a requirement.
Discussion of the ST-18 Europen a GAC members's propsosal
BSchaefer,RMeijer, SDelBianco,TRickert, JCancio, PIvoSilva
TRickert alternate proposal:
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 Governmental Advisory Committee advice, which enjoys broad support of Governmental Advisory Committee
members in the absence of significant objection, may only be rejected by a majority vote of the Board.
In this case, 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.
Temperature check for Euro GAC proposal = 9 for, 7 against
Temperature check for the alternate TRickert proposal above 10 support, 3 against
MW - Results of discussions will be presented to the CCWG. Propose to present to the CCWG the original
2nd Draft poroposal language, the European GAC proposal and the TRickert proposal to demonstrate progress. 2/3 to object from the
Board was seen as an issue.
Documents
- DOC: ST 18 European GAC Members Proposal.docx | PDF: ST 18 European GAC Members Proposal.pdf
- DOC: Thomas Rickert Proposal | PDF: Thomas Rickert Proposal
Adobe Chat
Brenda Brewer: (11/23/2015 07:35) Good day all and welcome to ST18 Meeting #4 on 23 November @ 14:00 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): (07:56) hi there
Brett Schaefer: (07:57) Hey Jorge
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (07:58) Hello everyone
Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (07:58) Hello all!
Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (07:59) Do we have audio?
Greg Shatan: (07:59) Hello, everybody!
Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (07:59) OK, we have now
Paul Rosenzweig: (07:59) Good morning
Markus Kummer: (07:59) Hi everyone
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (08:00) Hello everyone
Brenda Brewer: (08:00) Yes, we have audio!
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (08:00) Hello
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (08:00) Hello all!
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (08:02) Hello all
Megan Richards, European Commission: (08:02) is it only me or is there a problem with the sound ?
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (08:02) Reminder to please mute your mikes if not speaking
Philip Corwin: (08:02) Good day to all
Alice Jansen: (08:03) Please mute your line if not speaking.
Avri Doria: (08:07) adding a clear rationle is a good idea everywhere, always.
Greg Shatan: (08:08) An explicit requirement for a clear rationale (and not just a requrement to be "clear") is important and would be very helpful in trying to "sell" this in my constituencey.
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (08:08) OK with DK
Brett Schaefer: (08:08) My chat is not working correctly
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:08) I think it's essential that advice include a rationale. Even if it has to be provided a few days after the advice communique
Megan Richards, European Commission: (08:08) I believe that clarity was intended to be included
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:09) The board needs a rationale in order to determine its response, and the broader community will expect a rationale too
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:09) +1 Megan
Philip Corwin: (08:09) Would be desirable to include a clear rationale requirement
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:10) clarity isn't exactly the same thing as Rationale, Megan. We need clarity, yes. But rationale is needed, too
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (08:10) +1 to Pedro´s comment
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:10) Agree with Pedro on that
Matthew Shears: (08:10) agree Steve
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (08:10) This is an important inclusion in the bylaw
Greg Shatan: (08:10) +1 to Steve. "Rationale" is important.
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (08:10) ok with Pedro suggestion
Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (08:11) I agree re clear rationale supporting and explaining the advice. But assume that such a requirement will not remain unique to the GAC?
Avri Doria: (08:11) that was one of my pending questons was whether the chapeau section was still included. after this meeting would be good to see the entire text.
Megan Richards, European Commission: (08:12) while rationale is important and useful it is not something in my opinion that should be added to the ICANN bylaws
Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (08:12) Moreover, the more unclear or missing the rationale behind an advice, the higher the chance that it will be rejected, I would assime
Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (08:12) assume..
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:13) There is usually a conversation going on when an advice is not clear: there are already follow-up questions from the Board for instance
Elise Lindeberg GAC Norway: (08:14) + 1 Jorge - do we need anything extra follow up on this - I dont think so
Paul Rosenzweig: (08:16) Is my chat the only one that isn't working?
Matthew Shears: (08:16) well there were a number of variations to this text that we should discuss, no?
Philip Corwin: (08:17) Paul, I am seeing your chat -- so it is working
Paul Rosenzweig: (08:17) It seems to work now.
Paul Rosenzweig: (08:18) Now if only my audio out were working!
Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (08:21) +1 Roelof
Paul Rosenzweig: (08:21) Nonethless, with this change (GAC can force consideration of a non-full UN consensus advice) + GAC membership in the sole designator, that is a clear and significant increase in GAC authority -- I am quite sure it will be unacceptable to the community, much less the NTIA and Congress
Greg Shatan: (08:21) The Second Draft Report contained a section entitled "Principles" that contained a clear statement regarding the concept of a GAC rationale. That whole section appears to have gone missing from the Third Draft Proposal. That is deeply troubling to me.
Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (08:21) Well said Roelof
Matthew Shears: (08:22) + 1 Brett
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:22) +1 Brett.
Philip Corwin: (08:22) The current drfat would leave it solely to the Board whether the minority objecting was or was not "very small".
Greg Shatan: (08:23) Paragraph 154 of the Second Draft said: • Second, we propose to remove the language that was read by some commenters to remove ICANN’s obligation to consult with the GAC on consensus Advice. Instead, we propose to amend Article XI of the Bylaws, to provide that each advisory committee should provide a rationale for its advice, with references to relevant applicable national or international law where appropriate. The proposed language also implements the recommendation of ATRT2 requiring ICANN to work with the GAC to facilitate the GAC developing and publishing rationales for GAC Advice at the time Advice is provided.
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (08:23) +1 to Roelof comments
Megan Richards, European Commission: (08:23) we should be careful about using exact numbers as GAC may increase or even decrease in absolute numbers in future
Elise Lindeberg GAC Norway: (08:23) Roleof - agree
Matthew Shears: (08:24) I don't support such a lack of clarity when it comes to advice that requires the finding of a mutualy acceptable solution
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (08:24) We should not use numbers or %
Philip Corwin: (08:24) No, the community will not have an effective say -- it will be the Board's determination of whether 10 or 15 objecting nations is a very small minority.
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (08:25) Megan, do you think it will increase beyond a few in size? when thinking of 3-5%, it takes a lot of people to increase very much change.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:25) @Mathew: there is no requirement to FIND a mutually accepted solution, but to trying to - important difference
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (08:25) i mean not people, but states. apologies.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:26) It is hard to believe there is actually a proposal on the table to not define what requires board compliance.
Keith Drazek: (08:26) Notwithstanding my previously stated concerns, I could support this proposal with the deletion of the second-to-last paragraph giving special status to GAC advice that does not enjoy the absence of objection. The 2/3 threshold is a significant change and adding a new Board obligation on top of that is going too far.
Philip Corwin: (08:26) Why not replace 4th pargraph with "Any other advice approved by the GAC may be rejected by a majority vote of the Board"?
Matthew Shears: (08:26) Agree second to last para is problematic
Paul Rosenzweig: (08:26) Mathieu -- With this much disagreement, the most you can do, I think, is report both options. I know which one I support; I know which one Pedro and Olga support. This group cannot resolve this (especially since very few of us are members) and there is no agreement even ont he obligation to try to find an agreement -- which I think expands the bords powers.
Megan Richards, European Commission: (08:26) if there are formal objections to a position there is no consensus
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (08:26) picking a fixed number is clearest and can be bylaw changed if 30+ more states join.
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (08:28) this is a fixd number for near-consensus. obvious full is full no matter how many states join gac.
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (08:28) Very small majority is less than a handful in my view – but it is up to the Board to decided
Farzaneh Badii: (08:28) when will Board decide on this ? I have to say this is very arbitrary.
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:29) I agree with Greg. And I think these proposals to empower GAC further will kill the entire proposal before Congress & NTIA
Paul Rosenzweig: (08:30) Robin is right -- those insisting on this course of action are risking a great deal ...
Brett Schaefer: (08:30) +1 Phil
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (08:30) The same concern as Keith was raised within an indivisual member in the ASO, that 2/3 threshold would be a change from what it is today. Overall, this indivisual expressed he can accpept what helps the CCWG to move forward (i.e. having 2/3 threshold can be acceptable if supported by others in CCWG). Just to understand, I understand the implication better, Does this 2/3 threshold substantially change how the Board considers GAC advice in realiity? (Noted that this is an addition in terms of writing but would like to understand the impact in the reality)
Greg Shatan: (08:31) It gives me no pleasure to say what I've said. But i am trying to be clear-eyed about this. And not be swayed my momentum, pressure or "issue fatigue."
Greg Shatan: (08:31) my = by
Paul Rosenzweig: (08:31) +1 Greg
Brett Schaefer: (08:32) Mathieu, no it wouldn"t as long as teh UN consesnsus definition stays in
Edward Morris: (08:32) +1 Robin. If one wanted to kill the transition giving increased power to the GAC would be the surest way to do it.
Keith Drazek: (08:32) If we delete the 4th paragraph, the GAC still gets 2/3 and the ability to participate in the community mechanism. Is that not enough? As much as the RySG doesn't like 2/3, but it could probably be accepted as part of a package, but the introduction of two thresholds, effectively shifting and expanding the Board's obligations with regard to the GAC is really problematic.
Paul Rosenzweig: (08:33) Should we also not delete the 5th paragraph as well?
Philip Corwin: (08:33) If we delete rather than amend the 4th para we also have to edit the "in both instances" beginning of the 5th para.
Matthew Shears: (08:33) para 5 would ned to be reworded
Paul Rosenzweig: (08:33) That was what I meant Phil ....
Greg Shatan: (08:34) @Keith, the question is not "Is that not enough". The question is "Is that too much?"
Arun Sukumar: (08:34) I missed some bits but avri you are saying we should put a number on small minority right?
Brett Schaefer: (08:34) +1 Keith
Thomas Schneider (GAC): (08:35) Dear all, given how difficult it was to get the GAC to agree on the Dublin consensus, i would urge you all not to depart too much from the compromise efforts produced since then. Otherwise, i do honestly not know how i should get the GAC to agree on the final proposal...
Brett Schaefer: (08:35) Yes, the both instances language woul dhave to b ereplaced with consensus advice
Philip Corwin: (08:35) Not delete completely -- GAC wants assurance that Board rejection will be followed by attempt to find common ground, and as that is current practice it should not be controversial.
Megan Richards, European Commission: (08:36) +1 Roelof
Brett Schaefer: (08:36) Thomas, what we are proposing it consistent with teh Dublin consensus, the European proposal actually goes further.
Matthew Shears: (08:36) @ Thomas - the Dublin consensus seeks 2/3 threshold - it does not talk about another threshold - isn't that right?
Philip Corwin: (08:37) I did NOT say skip 4th para--I said amend. And I already addressed the 5th para in my chat comment.
Paul Rosenzweig: (08:38) Thomas -- With respect, I appreciate the challenge you have. But the GAC consensus is not what we need to achieve here. We need to achieve community consensus and the GAC is the outlier. If the choice is betweeen satisfying the GAC consensus and publishing a report that they cannot agree to, I choose the latter, and I suspect most of the community will. More to the point, as Robin has poointed out, the GAC consensus view is simply not acceptable from a political standpooint. If the community yields to the GAC it willl lose the transition.
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (08:38) +1 to Roelof comments
Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (08:38) Exactly Roelof!
Arun Sukumar: (08:39) if I may ask GAC members here, a very small minority = greater than one?
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (08:40) i also forgot to mention, it does not increase power as it is just advice that can be rejected and is now also subject to community consensus against in escalation if that advice goes against the bottom up multistakeholder process derived recommendations.
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (08:41) tat is what i mean by changed circumstance.
Paul Rosenzweig: (08:41) With respect Avri, i think you are wrong. FOr one thing, the mandatory negotiation is not available to any other AC. For another the GAC, which previously had no role is now going to participate in the Sole Designator ...
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (08:41) We can fix the unavaialbilty of such treatment for other AC advice up in WS2.
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (08:42) And it will be only 1 meber in the CM, not enough to capture in any way.
Megan Richards, European Commission: (08:42) sorry but once again so far as I know the GAC has NOT pronounced on its preferred "participation" in the Sole Designator or as an advisory committee to the Sole Designator - perhaps I have missed a step somewhere
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (08:42) the CM is raising everyone's level of particpation
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (08:42) Thank you Thomas for this summary. Indeed, as long as it adds better clarity on the actual practice today, I support it.
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (08:42) or rather level of possible participation.
Brett Schaefer: (08:43) Thomas, what do you mean by without significant objection? Should be without formal objection.
Paul Rosenzweig: (08:43) You are right Megan -- and some of my concen would be alleviated if the GAC could get itself to the point of pronouncing one way or the other ...
Philip Corwin: (08:43) Thomas, do you have actual language to propose?
Matthew Shears: (08:44) yes, would be good
Thomas Rickert: (08:44) Working on it now.
Philip Corwin: (08:45) I am unclear what level of Board vore would be required if GAC advice had "broard support in the absence of significant objection"?
Arun Sukumar: (08:45) yes actual language would be good - am interested but lowly participant
Philip Corwin: (08:45) vote
Thomas Rickert: (08:45) @Phil - simple majority
Philip Corwin: (08:46) So far as US Congress concerned, an objection by the US is always significant even if it stands alone or with just a few other nations.
Arun Sukumar: (08:46) and of course problem still persists if board gets to decide what is a significant objection
Philip Corwin: (08:46) Do we need any Bylaws language changes if a simple majority can object? That is default standard for Board action in all instances.
Philip Corwin: (08:47) Meant: a simple majority of Board can reject
Brett Schaefer: (08:48) No, Phil, just a small change to define consensus.
Brett Schaefer: (08:49) Correctio, define the type of GAC advice that would trigger the good faith effort to reach a mutually acceptab;e solution.
Philip Corwin: (08:50) OK
Megan Richards, European Commission: (08:50) for me Thomas Rickert's proposal seems to go a step backwards but I would prefer to comment only after having seen the text as I may have missed something in multitasking
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (08:50) +1 to Jorge and Pedro´s comments
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (08:51) Denmark is aware that a large number of GAC members have had problems with ST18 - DK does not have problems with this - but we find it very important that we solve this problem so that the multi-stakeholder model of ICANN can demonstrate that the model works - let us keep to Mark's proposal with the agreed amendments - there are many in New York in connection with WSIS + 10, which wants governments play an central role in this field - let's not give them “wind in the sails”!!!
Thomas Rickert: (08:52) 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 Governmental Advisory Committee advice, which enjoys broad support of Governmental Advisory Committee members in the absence of significant objection, may only be rejected by a majority vote of the Board.In this case, 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.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (08:52) thank you Denmark
Paul Rosenzweig: (08:52) Finn -- While the concern is real, you are disregarding the art of the possible. Gi ving GAC a 2/3 thresshould for UN consensus advice is alreadya a full step beyond where we are now. If the GAC overreaches here, it is they who will be putting wind in the sails, not the community. The skeptic in me suspect that is the intent ...
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:52) +1 Finn - we are trying very hard to integrate the GAC seamlessly as an basically advisory body into the new framework, but if colleagues insist to move the target always a step farther, this will be quite difficult
Philip Corwin: (08:52) @Finn-The fact that so many governments want to play a central role in tis field is exactly why this language must be drafted to not raise addirtional concerns in the community or US Congress
Brett Schaefer: (08:53) IF we can't reach a compromise, I think we need to revert to draft 2 suggested text.
Matthew Shears: (08:53) agree Brett
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (08:54) @Brette: I don't agree, because draft 2 proposal has not enjoyed consensus in the CCWG
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:54) that has been our practice, Brett.
Philip Corwin: (08:54) I do hope that I will get an opportunity to speak a minute to my proposed amendment before this call ends, notwithstanding Thomas' proposal.
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (08:54) *Brette
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (08:54) *Brett
Matthew Shears: (08:54) can we see the text?
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:54) @Brett/Mathew: reverting won't help to address the input expressed by the GAC in Dublin, I'm afraid
Paul Rosenzweig: (08:55) Jorge -- That'sOK .... input doesn't ahve to bee accepted, just considered ...
Philip Corwin: (08:56) can the Rockert language be made downloadable or circulated by email?
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (08:56) I agree that sticking with existing langauge is the std practice we are following. I think thought that this is at the CCWG level. i assume this group shas to report something, with all the proposals ammendments and impressions.
Arun Sukumar: (08:56) in my view this is language that can be worked with, but with on significant objection
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:56) Dear Paul: I feel that if this is a multistakeholder organisation, input has to be addressed in a rationale, objective and fair manner - and here we are witnessing something else I fear
Arun Sukumar: (08:56) *clarity on
Brett Schaefer: (08:56) Relace "of significant" with "formal" and I would be OK with this.
Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (08:57) Finn's words are very wise, and take into account that they come from a country with no problems with ST18. But this a is an issue to be looked into in a very open fashion, taking into account the whole MS ecosystem and the full IG agenda
Arun Sukumar: (08:57) lol
Philip Corwin: (08:57) On first impression, Thomas' suggestion would be much less than of a lightning rod in community and Congress
Philip Corwin: (08:58) "Rocket" was a Freudian typo ;-)
Greg Shatan: (08:58) Thomas, that's your stage name with The Soul Designators....
Arun Sukumar: (08:58) hmm board deciding what is significant objection... that's concerning. again, this is a move forward
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:58) Brett's new moved target is not acceptable
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (08:58) Well put, Mathieu
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:59) May we be constructive, please?
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (08:59) And not calling "friendly amendments" what is clearly not
Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (08:59) thank you Mathieu
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (08:59) I don't sense the spirit of constructiveness here, unfortunately
Arun Sukumar: (09:00) could we add in a "timely, transparent and efficient manner"
Matthew Shears: (09:00) lets take this rocket option back to the CCWG as well
Brett Schaefer: (09:00) Again, the GAC would not be prevented from sending non-conse
Brett Schaefer: (09:01) non-consensus advice forward. There is flexibility.
Arun Sukumar: (09:01) getting warm in here....
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (09:02) (For clarity of my position, it is acceptable if this is the direction supported by CCWG)
Thomas Schneider (GAC): (09:03) as Mathieu has said: the current situation is that the GAC voluntarily works on consensus in the absence of formal objections, but under the condition that - if the right to object would be abused by a single or very small number of GAC members - there would be the possibility to change the notion of consensus. This package has worked very well in the past. If this flexibility for the GAC to define consensus would be lost, many GAC members are afraid that this would damage the constructive working methods currently practiced in the GAC...
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (09:03) explanation: I only agree on the Rickert proposal as a way to achieve compromise
Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (09:04) noted Jorge, I also see that as 'a' way fwd
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (09:04) Not in a condition right now to take Brazil's position on this
Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (09:04) I only agree on the Rickert proposal as a way to achieve compromise
Megan Richards, European Commission: (09:05) also if no other alternative then ok for Rickert proposal
Thomas Schneider (GAC): (09:05) i abstain from voting as the GAC chair but i would invite GAC members to express their views...
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (09:05) if the GAC can buy this, then i am ok with it.
Arun Sukumar: (09:05) +1 to rocket, and Cheryl's view that it is a way fwd
Keith Drazek: (09:05) None of us have had the chance to check with our capitals (the RySG in my case). ;-)
Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (09:05) Argentina cannot take a position now on this, must be reviewed
Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (09:05) Agreed Keith
Greg Shatan: (09:06) I indicate support only for the purpose of compromise.
Greg Shatan: (09:06) Roelof, are you saying that the absence of the 2/3 requirement is not a practical difference?
Philip Corwin: (09:07) My indication of support is clearly personal as the proposal is brand new and I have had no opportunity to consult with BC, CSG, or GNSO.
Matthew Shears: (09:07) I think this is useful approach thomas
Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (09:07) Spain has to reflect
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (09:07) i do not think omission of the 2/3 category is huge. the Boaard does not gernerally act on narrow majorities.
Greg Shatan: (09:08) +1 to Keith and Phil's reservations as well.
Brett Schaefer: (09:08) IWhat does signifiant mean? This lack of clarity was the problem all along. You are avoiding the issue, not resolving it.
Greg Shatan: (09:09) I think the optics of the 2/3 majority are of considerable concern, both in terms of overruling recent community objections and the path to approval beyond ICANN.
Avri Doria (atrt, participant): (09:09) I accept the 2/3 as i do not think it significant except for symbolically. I accept it disapppearing in compromise becasue the symbol is tno worth dieing in a ditch over. at least not for me.
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (09:09) Support this as a neutral compromise - ithere was agreement to create a 2/3 threshold at time of ATRT2 so we do need to come back to this: not sure when.
Thomas Rickert: (09:09) Brett, we are doing what has been done in the legal world for centuries. We are using abstract and general language that needs to be applied to concrete and individual circumstances.
Philip Corwin: (09:10) The Board's current informal practice on GAC consensus advice is to require a 2/3 vote to reject. It was the Board's initiative to require that practice through a Bylaws amendment that drew community objection and Congressional concern.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (09:10) Tomorrow Mark's proposal should be on the CCWG discussion, as it had 9 support and 7 objections
Arun Sukumar: (09:10) the lack of clarity means this process has to be done in a transparent manner
Arun Sukumar: (09:10) let me once again request an addition to rocket language on timely, "transparent" and efficient manner
Thomas Rickert: (09:10) Arun, the transparency language needs to be added as suggested by Steve delB earlier.
Julia Wolman, GAC Denmark: (09:11) +1 Jorge
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (09:12) apart from the Rickert proposal, which would be the other single alternative on the platter of the ccwg
Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (09:12) @Greg: check my email on the ST18 list. I am not suggesting a specific treatment of the GAC with regard to this obligation to try to find a mutual acceptable solution. I just said so to: it is good practice for broadly supported advice from ANY SO or AC
Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (09:12) agree with you Mathieu
Matthew Shears: (09:12) I think putting those three options forward makes sense Mathieu
Arun Sukumar: (09:13) yup
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (09:13) + support transparency point - to provide rationale: is this to be added to the text?
Keith Drazek: (09:14) @Roelof: It is good practive, but creating new Board obligations relative to Advisory Committees destabilizes the current balance in the community structures. That should be a WS2 concern, if at all.
Greg Shatan: (09:14) Roelof, the GAC does in fact get specific treatment, and it occurs as a result of this particular language.
Greg Shatan: (09:15) Again, that is not to state an objection to it, just to acknowledge the fact.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (09:15) Before adding new issues such as the one now being proposed by Phil we would need a thorough debate.
Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (09:16) As I said on the list, I feel we should not open up new and additional issues at this very late stage, which do not have a direct relation with the issues we have been discussing under the heading of ST18.
Greg Shatan: (09:16) The US Congress is quite famiiliar with the concept of tacking unpopular proposals on to broad and necessary proposed legislation....
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (09:17) Agree with Rafael - we should not add unrelated issues now
Megan Richards, European Commission: (09:17) on hearings before Congress my understanding was that Fadi was speaking as CEO of ICANN not on behalf and for the whole community -
Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (09:17) +1 Megan
Greg Shatan: (09:17) We are not operating under rules that require the concept of amendents being "friendly" or not.
Greg Shatan: (09:18) Except to the extent that we continue to identify a proposal with those who proposed it.
Philip Corwin: (09:19) My inetent is friendly towards the GAC's desire to change the Bylaws, whether that is perceived or not.
Keith Drazek: (09:19) I support Phil's suggestion. Also agree that the Rickert language provides a more constructive path forward.
Philip Corwin: (09:19) Thx Keith
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (09:19) I feel we are trying to put to the ccwg options with broad support, as Merk's and Rickert's language
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (09:19) We need to take this away to the GAC.
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (09:19) Mark's
Elise Lindeberg GAC Norway: (09:20) + Mark
Brett Schaefer: (09:20) The Rickert language is an improvement, but the ambiguity is a problem. Who interprets significantobjection? the Board? Should that be explicitly put into this proposal?
Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:21) Are some countries' objections more "signficant" than others? I'm also uncomfortable with the ambiguity.
Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (09:22) GAC alays tries to resolve significant objections but risk of one or two members entrenched in a contrry position is a potentail problem we need to find a way to avoid.
Megan Richards, European Commission: (09:22) thanks Mathieu for moving this forward
Keith Drazek: (09:22) Thanks Mathieu and Thomas. Thanks to everyone.
Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (09:22) bye
Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC_Spain): (09:22) Thanks
Matthew Shears: (09:22) thanks
Markus Kummer: (09:22) By everyone
Arun Sukumar: (09:22) bye all
Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (09:22) Thx!
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (09:22) bye all
Izumi Okutani (ASO): (09:22) Thanks all
jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (09:23) thanks and bye
