/
ST18 Meeting #2 (18 November @ 13:00 UTC)

ST18 Meeting #2 (18 November @ 13:00 UTC)

Owned by Brenda Brewer
Last updated: Mar 04, 2025 by Aleksey KhapchenkoVersion comment

Attendees: 

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).**

Transcript

Recording

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.

MW - two documents have been distributed and can be found at https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/wxDTBQ

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.

Next steps:

-  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.

Documents

Adobe Chat

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://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/wxDTBQ

  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