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

Thu Nov 12 02:48:01 UTC 2015

I don't agree with Jon, and I don't think we are in a position to
fundamentally re-evaluate the decision-making process for the use of the
community powers.

best
Jordan

On 12 November 2015 at 14:24, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Also agree with Jon on this key point, which has been raised before, but
> not dealt with due to more "pressing" issues.
>
> Robin
>
> On Nov 11, 2015, at 2:34 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:
>
> Agree with Jon, “consent of the governed” is an necessary component of
> community decision making.
>
> Thanks—
>
> J.
>
>
> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Jon
> Nevett <jon at donuts.email>
> Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 20:51
> To: Accountability Cross Community <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Cc: "<wp1 at icann.org>" <wp1 at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator
>
> 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. Iâ€™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.
>
> Iâ€™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
>
> *From:* Alan Greenberg [ mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
> <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 > 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
> <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
> donâ€™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
> <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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
>

-- 
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 *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151112/b1ae7433/attachment-0001.html>