<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">DP: Of course I completely agree: the limitation regarding consensus policies has done
<i>absolutely nothing </i>to curb Board power. But that's not because it "means absolutely nothing" - I have a pretty good idea what it means, I think you have a pretty good idea what it means, and I think most people in the community have a pretty good idea
what it means. <span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM:
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:#1F497D">J</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> Sorry, can’t agree - after 18 years in the ICANN I have less and less an idea what “consensus” means.
The term has been abused so frequently in this context I wince every time I hear it. I know what it used to mean – no objection from any engaged party (Quaker consensus). But neither ICANN nor IETF nor anyone except perhaps Quaker meetings actually operate
that way. So then we’re down to “rough consensus” or what I prefer to call “declared consensus” which means in essence that some Working Group chair gets to decide which people/opinions he or she is going to ignore, with no precise specifications of numbers
or criteria. Which makes for a very weak basis for legalistic appeals before an IRP, imho.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">On the GNSO Council they have avoided this problem by defining various supermajority levels as “consensus” but then we’re just voting really. So do you mean there
are precise vote levels that have to be obtained by a policy, and those can be used to appeal if they are ignored? Or do you mean reliance on “declared consensus?”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">DP: But surely the primary vehicle for "overturning GAC advice" should be the IRP - that is, if the Board adopts a policy on the basis of GAC advice, or GAC + ALAC advice, why wouldn't the (newly constituted) IRP - if it's really doing
its job - say: "you can't do that, because you're only empowered to implement consensus policy, and you don't have a consensus here?" You seem to have given up on that, and I don't understand why.<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM: I would think that a much stronger basis for challenging a board/GAC decision would be that it is outside the boundaries drawn by the mission statement and
core values. One could claim “by making this decision ICANN is using its authority over DNS to regulate content.” And the IRP panel could decide whether that was a true claim or not. I suppose that an IRP panel could also determine whether there was consensus
or not at the time a policy was passed, but again I find any definition of consensus that does not rely on precise quantities to be too easily gamed.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:41.25pt">
<o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">DP: I get it that there are lots of governments out there that want to dictate policy here, and that we're trying to make sure that doesn't happen. I think an ENFORCEABLE requirement that the Board can only implement consensus policies
relating to the security/stability of the DNS is going to be the only real protection against it happening, regardless of the voting allocation formulas and/or the provisions regarding GAC advice.
<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM: What if there _<i>is</i>_ a rough consensus among the active constellation of actors in the ICANN regime that it should do something that is outside its mandate?
There is, e.g., often consensus and/or a democratic majority in the U.S. that an unpopular speaker’s freedom of expression rights should be suppressed.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>