[CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Wed Nov 11 11:07:41 UTC 2015
I have not fully considered this new proposal but if it were to be fully considered it would have to apply to ACs as well.
Alan
--
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On November 10, 2015 11:51:36 PM GMT-03:00, Jon Nevett <jon at donuts.email> wrote:
>Folks:
>
>I'd like to propose an amendment to the Community Decision-making
>Process.
>
>In the case where an issue being considered most directly relates to a
>specific Supporting Organization, we should require support of that SO
>in order to utilize a community action. For example, if the community
>is considering blocking a change to a standard Bylaw -- Article IX of
>the ICANN Bylaws (CCNSO) -- we should ensure that the CCNSO supports
>using a community action in order to move forward.
>
>In the case of blocking ICANN's budget, which includes the specific
>amount gTLD registration fees, the GNSO must support using that
>community process.
>
>In the case of an ASO related IRP issue, the ASO must support before
>the community makes a decision binding.
>
>We should require the specific SO at issue plus at least 50% of the
>other SOs and ACs participating in the decision in order for the
>community decision process is invoked.
>
>To do otherwise, we risk tyranny of the majority being used against the
>group most impacted by a decision.
>
>Of course, in the case where there is no SO that is predominantly at
>issue, we should go with a certain requirement of support that we
>already have been discussing.
>
>We also would need to figure out how to handle a dispute of which SO is
>predominant. Regardless of how we handle that issue, we should ensure
>that the SO most impacted by use of community powers are in support.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Jon
>
>
>> On Nov 10, 2015, at 9:44 AM, Alan Greenberg
><alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
>>>
>>> From: Alan Greenberg [ mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
><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
><seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto: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
><mailto: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
><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
><mailto: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 <mailto: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> [
>mailto: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
><mailto: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
><mailto: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 <http://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 <http://heritage.org/>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory at sidley.com
><mailto: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 <tel:%2B64-4-495-2118> (office) | +64-21-442-649
><tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob)
>>> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>>> Skype: jordancarter
>>> Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz/>
>>>
>>> A better world through a better Internet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jordan Carter
>>>
>>> Chief Executive
>>> InternetNZ
>>>
>>> +64-4-495-2118 <tel:%2B64-4-495-2118> (office) | +64-21-442-649
><tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob)
>>> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>>> Skype: jordancarter
>>> Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz/>
>>>
>>> A better world through a better Internet
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
><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/20151111/49710cb9/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list