[CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Nov 10 10:51:04 UTC 2015


There is a huge difference between an AC/SO that has explicitly said it will not participate at all and one that decides to not state a position on exercising a power in a particular instance. The latter IS participating by neither supporting nor opposing the action. Without sufficient ACTIVE support, the action dies.

In the extreme, option 2 will allow one AC/SO to exercise a power on its own, since 1 is greater than 75% of 1.

Alan 
-- 
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On November 10, 2015 1:54:23 AM GMT-03:00, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I think lowering the threshold may still bring us to a deadlock since
>we
>are not always certain whether all will participate at any point in
>time.
>Allowing splitting votes is out of discussion as we have agreed to go
>by
>consensus.
>
>Option 2 IMO seem to be a good thing to explore further and in order to
>ensure that is not abused, an overall minimum total number of
>participating
>SO/AC should be set. So if that minimum is not achieved then there is
>no
>need to check those in support or against. I think a minimum number of
>4
>may be in order.
>That will ensure that percentage is not used on say 3 participating
>SO/AC
>or less.
>
>Regards
>Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
>Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>On 9 Nov 2015 22:57, "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
>wrote:
>
>> Jordan,
>>
>>
>>
>> If the model that we are discussing is unworkable under a fairly
>realistic
>> eventuality that seems to be a critical problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> In my opinion, it requires consideration of: (1) lowering the
>thresholds
>> to three if there are only four participating entities; (2) shifting
>> minimum thresholds from 4 entities in support to, instead, at least
>75
>> percent of the participating entities in support; or (3) allowing the
>> splitting of votes to surmount existing thresholds.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Brett
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz]
>> *Sent:* Monday, November 09, 2015 4:46 PM
>> *To:* Schaefer, Brett
>> *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community; wp1 at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [WP1] Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator
>>
>>
>>
>> hi Brett,
>>
>>
>>
>> Such matrices of decision are not being drafted. If you are able to
>attend
>> the call in around ~15 hours, I think it would be useful to talk this
>> through. As I've said before, if we are down to four SO/ACs
>participating,
>> to my mind that's too small an orbit to use the current model.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jordan
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10 November 2015 at 08:34, Schaefer, Brett
><Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Jordan,
>>
>>
>>
>> I appreciate the explanation provided in the memo.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, I note that the decision matrix remains unchanged in that it
>> requires support from 4 SOs/ACs to exercise powers 1, 2, 5, and 7.
>The
>> operating assumption is that GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, and ALAC will
>participate. I
>> believe that they will, but it would be good to get confirmation even
>with
>> the knowledge that such a statement should not be considered an
>endorsement
>> of the CCWG proposal.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, as we discussed in the previous CCWG WP1 call, there is a
>possible
>> complication if RSSAC, as expected, decides not to participate and
>GAC
>> either (1) decides not to participate, (2) decides not to participate
>> immediately, but announces its desire to be allowed participate at
>some
>> future date, or (3) cannot reach a consensus position.
>>
>>
>>
>> In that case, unanimous support by the 4 SOs/ACs assumed above to
>> participate would be required in order to exercise powers 1,2, 5, and
>7. I
>> don’t think that unanimous support was supposed to be required for
>exercise
>> of the community powers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Until we have confirmation of which SOs and ACs (other than SSAC
>which has
>> explicitly stated its intention not to participate) will be
>participating
>> in the mechanism, we need to plan out possible scenarios. For this
>reason,
>> I think we need to provide decision matrices based on varying levels
>of
>> participation.  Is this being drafted?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> Brett
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* wp1-bounces at icann.org [mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org] *On
>Behalf
>> Of *Jordan Carter
>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 08, 2015 5:51 PM
>> *To:* Accountability Cross Community; wp1 at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [WP1] Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator
>>
>>
>>
>> ... and in PDF
>>
>> J
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9 November 2015 at 11:50, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all - for your reading pleasure and for the lists record.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jordan
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *Brett* *Schaefer*
>>
>> * Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory
>Affairs
>> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
>Security
>> and Foreign Policy*
>> The Heritage Foundation
>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
>> Washington, DC 20002
>> 202-608-6097
>> heritage.org
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> Brett Schaefer
>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory
>Affairs
>> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
>Security
>> and Foreign Policy
>> The Heritage Foundation
>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
>> Washington, DC 20002
>> 202-608-6097
>> heritage.org
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *Gregory, Holly* <holly.gregory at sidley.com>
>> Date: 7 November 2015 at 13:48
>> Subject: Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator
>>
>> Dear Co-Chairs, Jordan and Staff,
>>
>>
>>
>> Attached please find a substantially reorganized and revised memo on
>how
>>  the Sole Designator would be made operational, to replace the memo
>that
>> was sent to you last week.  The changes are largely in the nature of
>> clarifications and we have addressed the point requested below as
>well.  We
>> request that this memo be posted to replace the prior memo.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Holly and Rosemary
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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 *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20151110/070b4a78/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list