[CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Revised draft - Voting weights in community mechanism

Mathieu Weill mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Wed Jul 29 09:38:57 UTC 2015

Hi Chris, All,

Another very good example of scenario, so I Cc Hillary.

Le 29/07/2015 07:24, Chris Disspain a écrit :
> However, we should also be very clear that the community powers we are 
> considering putting in place will also provide the power to block 
> policy arising from one of the SOs especially where the policy 
> concerned requires there to be a by-law change. The GNSO could 
> complete a PDP and recommend POLICY X and the Board decide to proceed 
> to change the by-laws BUT all of that would be trumped if the by-law 
> change were blocked by 'the community'. And whether the GNSO could 
> ‘block' the block depends entirely on the voting thresholds we put in 
> place. So, for example, with 20 votes and 75% required to vote to 
> block, the gNSO cannot, alone, block the block. 
As you rightly point out Chris, two cumulative conditions are needed for 
a gNSO policy proposal to get blocked with the new powers :
1) that the policy proposal requires a Bylaw change
2) (in the scenario described earlier) that 2/3 of the community reject 
the Bylaw change. In the scenario you described (4x5 votes), that means 
14 votes against out of 20, while 5 votes come from the gNSO.

Once again, it's useful (but subjective) to ask whether that's a useful 
safeguard or an undue interference with the policy making role of the gNSO.

Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Twitter : @mathieuweill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150729/f7ddbd0f/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list