[CCWG-ACCT] Decision-making in the community mechanism - update for CCWG

Mon Nov 2 22:14:09 UTC 2015

Dear all

Work Party 1 has been discussing at some length the innovations developed
in Dublin about community decision-making - particularly, the operation of
decisions in the Community Mechanism that have to happen following the
various dialogue and discussion phases.

Over the past two calls in the last week, we've discussed some of the
details, and I have the following recommendations for the CCWG arising from
that. Each recommendation has some info about it noted below, and at the
end of this email are some relevant attachments.

*WP1 members - if I have made errors in the summary, please let us all
know.*

Overall, WP1 has agreed with the change to the broad approach into what
might be called the "Dublin Approach". There are some specifics that are
important:

*a) on split or single decisions within each SO or AC*

*WP1 recommends to the CCWG that each SO or AC should come to a decision by
means of its own processes, and that "split" decisions or delegating
decisions to sub-units will not be available.*

This is a recommendation from WP1 to the CCWG and was largely consensus of
the group on the call on 2 November. It is a change from the Second Draft
Proposal but is consistent with what was discussed in Dublin. GNSO
participants in WP1 have expressed concerns with this. It would be complex
to allow split decisions in a consensus model.

*b) on participating SOs and ACs*

*Decision rights for the exercise of community powers be granted to the
GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, ALAC and GAC. SSAC and RSSAC will be able to advise the
other SOs or ACs through the Community Forum. Each SO or AC has the right
to participate or not participate in any decision, with their choice not
affecting the thresholds established for the exercise of community powers.*

WP1 discussed but did not formally lodge it as a recommendation per se. We
took a temperature check of the Adobe room and there were [thirteen in
favour, four against] the recommendation.

SSAC have made it clear they do not contemplate decisional rights. RSSAC we
are awaiting input. GAC - GAC wishes to protect the right to opt in. There
was a discussion about how to provide opt in or otherwise. My advice as
rapporteur is that we should include all SOs or ACs as able to participate
unless they indicate they do not wish to. This will allow them to decide
(by their own consensus processes) at each stage of each decision whether
to express support or objection to the exercise of a community power, but
means that non-decision won't count either as objection or support.

*c) on the distribution of influence between SOs and ACs*

*Each of the five SOs and ACs with decision rights have an equality of
voice/influence in decisions to exercise community powers.*

Again, WP1 discussed but did not formally lodge this as a recommendation.
We took a temperature check and this again showed [thirteen in favour, four
against] the recommendation.

Some WP1 participants continue to argue for the view that SOs should have
relatively more influence than ACs. It is difficult to establish how to
weigh such a difference in the context of each SO or AC by consensus
offering a view in support of or objecting to the use of a power.

*d) on decision thresholds in the community mechanism*

*WP1 recommends to the CCWG that the levels of agreement among SOs and ACs
in support of exercising a power, and the limits to levels of opposition,
be agreed as those set out in the paper from Steve DelBianco updated by
Jordan Carter and discussed at this meeting.*

This recommendation from WP1 was broadly agreed as consistent with the
previous temperature checks and the first recommendation. No temperature
check was held.

Two concerns were raised in discussion (see the table as attachment A to
this email - you can ignore the last column based on recommendation in a)
above).

1) with five SOs or ACs participating, and with GAG not having decided
whether to participate, whether a threshold of four SOs/ACs by consensus
supporting the use of a power was too high a threshold. It would
essentially require unanimity among the three SOs and ALAC. (This threshold
is proposed for Budget veto, approval of changes to fundamental bylaws,
recall of the ICANN Board and decisions re IANA Functions separation for
names.)

2) for the power to recall the entire ICANN Board, whether one objecting SO
or AC should prevent that power being used. (The broad view was no, it
should not - consistent with our principled position that no single SO or
AC should be able to prevent the use of any of the community powers.)

*Papers*

Please find the following attached:

A - the consensus measure table related to item d) above.
B - the "Dublin Approach" background paper
C - the breakout report, including the decision table
D - the public comments report on the community mechanism

Cheers,
Jordan

WP1 Rapporteur
CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability

-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ*

+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter
Web: www.internetnz.nz

*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151103/2d11545d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: A - Consensus MeasuresTable for Community Mechanism.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 44313 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151103/2d11545d/A-ConsensusMeasuresTableforCommunityMechanism.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: B - 2015-11-02-Community-Decision-split-decisions-v2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 80556 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151103/2d11545d/B-2015-11-02-Community-Decision-split-decisions-v2.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: C - 2015-10-30-CommunityDecision-MakingTheDublinApproachWorkingPaper.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 313598 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151103/2d11545d/C-2015-10-30-CommunityDecision-MakingTheDublinApproachWorkingPaper.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: D - 2015-10-12-CCWG-WP1-SecondPC-CMSM.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 82454 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151103/2d11545d/D-2015-10-12-CCWG-WP1-SecondPC-CMSM.pdf>