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

[Seun Ojedeji]

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 3 Nov 2015 07:14, "Jordan Carter" <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
>
> Dear all
>
> 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.
>

SO: Is there any particular reason why you did not formerly lodge this? For
how long do we have to keep an issue open especially at this injury time.

>
> 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.
>
SO: Same comment/question as above. When do you intend to get closure on
this?

Thanks

Regards

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151103/0762ad0b/attachment.html>