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

Tue Nov 10 11:15:42 UTC 2015

Hi Alan,

I am not sure whether that was a response to my comment, just incase it is.
The extreme scenario you pose is the reason why I suggested setting minimum
number of SO/AC required to even consider support or against in the first
place.  I recognize the difference between those that don't want to
participate at all (like the SSAC) compare to those who may participate but
may not use the power often (like GAC). My suggestion is to address both
scenario should incase SSAC change its mind in future and should incase GAC
wants to use the power.

So if minimum of 4 SO/AC is set as the required threshold before consensus
level is observed then the fear of one AC/SO exercising power would be out
of it. I think we need to agree on what minimum number of SO/AC is worthy
of executing the community powers if others don't want to participate.

Regards

Regards

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151110/584446ad/attachment-0001.html>