[CCWG-ACCT] Summary of proposals discussed last night in context of Rec. #11
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Feb 2 23:31:24 UTC 2016
Becky, do you foresee the power to be exercised
including removal of the entire Board (as a
remedy to action/inaction related to GAC advice).
If so, that reduced the Board removal threshold
to three which is at odd with several comments including those of the Board.
Alan
At 02/02/2016 05:10 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:
>UPDATED:
>
>I have attempted to set out the proposals discussed last night.
>
>Aresteh Proposal:
>
>Modify Rec. #11/ Annex 11 to provide that GAC
>Advice supported by consensus, defined as
>general agreement in the absence of a formal
>objection, may be rejected only by a vote of at
>least 60% of the Board. All other requirements
>(e.g., rationale to be provided, etc.)
>unchanged. This proposal is strictly limited to
>Recommendation 11 Annex 11 without any change to
>Recommendation 1 as it stands on 02 February 2016.
>
>Hutty Gloss on 60% Threshold: Add language to
>ensure that supermajority requirement creates no
>new expectation of approval or otherwise modify
>the Boards standard of review of GAC Advice.
>
>Burr Proposal:
>
>· Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
>
>The GAC may not, however, participate as a
>decision maker in the Empowered Communitys
>consideration of the exercise a community power
>for the purpose of challenging or blocking the
>Boards implementation of GAC Advice. In such
>cases, the GAC remains free to participate in
>community deliberations in an advisory capacity,
>but its views will not count towards or against
>otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a
>conference call, convene a Community Forum, or
>exercise a specific Community Power. This carve
>out preserves the ICANN Boards unique
>obligation to work with the GAC try to find a
>mutually acceptable solution to implementation
>of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined
>in Rec. #11) while protecting the communitys
>power to challenge such Board decisions.
>
>· Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to
>reflect this carve out and add the following
>language to cover situations that would
>otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
>
>The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in
>a situation where the GAC may not participate as
>a Decisional AC because the community power is
>proposed to be used to challenge the Boards
>implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold
>is set at four in support, the power will still
>be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
>
>Kavouss has asked whether my proposal is paired
>to a 66% threshold, 60% threshold or simple
>majority for rejecting GAC Advice. It is not
>inconsistent with any of those outcomes.
>
>J. Beckwith Burr
>Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
>1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
>Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367
>/ <http://www.neustar.biz>neustar.biz
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20160202/13eab011/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list