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

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Nov 10 14:44:57 UTC 2015


No misunderstanding. I was replying to Seun who 
raised the case of some AC/SOs choosing not to 
participate in a particular issue.

Alan

At 10/11/2015 07:29 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote:

>Alan,
>
>I think there is a bit of misunderstanding. 
>I’m not talking about a participating SO or AC 
>choosing to abstain or make no decision. That is 
>anticipated in the model. Abstention, as far as 
>I understand it, is not considered either 
>opposition or support for the purposes of 
>exercising the community powers – in other words 
>iit does not count for the thresholds either in support or against.
>
>I’m talking about situations like SSAC, where 
>a AC decides not to participate at all. Most 
>seem to believe that RSSAC will likewise decide not to participate.
>
>But the assumption is that GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, 
>ALAC, and GAC will. This is why everyone is 
>assuming that we will have 5 participating 
>entities in the community mechanism.
>
>But if GAC or one of the others decides 
>otherwise or simple cannot reach consensus on 
>participating for some length of time, we would 
>only have 4 or even fewer participating 
>entities. In the first situation, using those 
>four community powers would require community 
>unanimity. In the second, the community would 
>not be able to exercise those powers at all.
>
>That is why I suggested getting confirmation of 
>intent to participate – acknowledging that this 
>would not be an endorsement of the CCWG proposal 
>– from the ACss and SOs so that we can accurately project for the model.
>
>I also think that we need to explore thresholds 
>for various levels of participation for that reason.
>
>Best,
>
>Brett
>
>
>
>
>
>----------
>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
><http://heritage.org/>heritage.org
>
>From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 5:51 AM
>To: Seun Ojedeji; Schaefer, Brett
>Cc: <wp1 at icann.org>; Accountability Cross Community
>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator
>
>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 <<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>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" 
><<mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>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; <mailto:wp1 at icann.org>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 
><<mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>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: 
><mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org>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; <mailto:wp1 at icann.org>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 
><<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>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
><http://heritage.org/>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
><http://heritage.org/>heritage.org
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: Gregory, Holly 
><<mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>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
>
><tel:%2B64-4-495-2118>+64-4-495-2118 (office) | 
><tel:%2B64-21-442-649>+64-21-442-649 (mob)
>Email: <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>Skype: jordancarter
>Web: <http://www.internetnz.nz>www.internetnz.nz
>
>A better world through a better Internet
>
>
>
>
>--
>Jordan Carter
>
>Chief Executive
>InternetNZ
>
><tel:%2B64-4-495-2118>+64-4-495-2118 (office) | 
><tel:%2B64-21-442-649>+64-21-442-649 (mob)
>Email: <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>Skype: jordancarter
>Web: <http://www.internetnz.nz>www.internetnz.nz
>
>A better world through a better Internet
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>----------
>
>
>
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>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/d0e6c424/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list