[CCWG-ACCT] Updated Proposal Documents Available for Review

[Jordan Carter]

Dear Kavouss,

I've said a number of times I don't mind the outcome either way. Because of
that I don't hear, or make, strong arguments in favour or against any
option.

Because of that, I tend to favour not changing the report if we don't have
to.

I honestly believe that the circumstances in which this power would be used
and this lower threshold available are so unlikely, that it would only ever
happen in a state of shocking conflict. And since board members are usually
quite rational, I also believe that if the Board allowed things to get that
bad, they would probably be thinking of resigning anyway.

Or to put it another way - I don't think we have a problem here that needs
fixing by changing the report.

Jordan

On Monday, 22 February 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Jordan
> Re your last message relating
> to the removal if the Board in case of  no IRP, i am not still convinced
> by yr argument .
> Why not ,exceptionally require 4SO/AC for that case.
> Such exception, could help to 1) satisfy Board, s concerns and 2) could
> help other participants be more comfortable that in the absence of IRP the
> 4 SO/AC support will prevail and thus be more comfortable to accept the
> Carve-Out
> Regards
> Kavousd
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 22 Feb 2016, at 10:41, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan at internetnz.net.nz');>> wrote:
>
> Thanks Hillary for this.
>
> All, in prep for our call on the 23rd, I thought I'd extract and post the
> exact wording from Annex 2 about the carve out thresholds that seems to be
> at the centre of the discussion. Here they are:
>
> Quote from Annex 2 - para 72 and bullet:
>
> - - -
> The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC
> may not participate as a Decisional Participant because the Community Power
> is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC
> consensus 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,with the following exception:
>
> Where the power to be exercised is recalling the entire Board for
> implementing GAC advice, the reduced threshold would apply only either (1)
> after an IRP has found that, in implementing GAC advice, the Board acted
> inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, or (2) if the IRP is not available to
> challenge the Board action in question. If the Empowered Community has
> brought such an IRP and does not prevail, the Empowered Community may not
> exercise its power to recall the entire the Board solely on the basis of
> the matter decided by the IRP. It may, however, exercise that power based
> on other grounds.
> - - -
>
>
> I read this as establishing a threshold of three SOs/ACs in support to use
> the Board recall power in only two situations:
>
> 1) if IRP held that Board acted inconsistent with bylaws
> 2) if IRP is not available
>
> Otherwise the threshold would remain at four SOs/ACs in support.
>
> I cannot think of many circumstances where the IRP is not available, since
> almost any action of the Board could be tested against the bylaws through
> an IRP.
>
> If an IRP finds in favour of the Board, the threshold would remain at four
> SOs/ACs in support.  Yes, it breaches the principle of unanimity being
> never required, but it does so after a thorough investigation by an IRP
> process. (If there is no such investigation, i.e. no IRP available, then
> the lower threshold applies.)
>
> Seems fine to me.
>
>
> Speak with you all in ~18hours...
>
>
> Jordan
>
>
>
> On 22 February 2016 at 16:14, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','hillary.jett at icann.org');>> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> As requested by the co-Chairs, staff has made available the updated Core
>> Proposal, Annexes and Appendices as they were prepared after comments
>> received from the 17 February posting in anticipation of a 19 February
>> distribution of the proposal to the Chartering Organizations. They can be
>> found on the wiki here (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
>>
>> These documents are *not* final, however have been made available for
>> preliminary review. Any discussions on the list from 19 February to now are
>> not reflected.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Hillary
>>
>> --
>> Hillary Jett
>> Communications Coordinator
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>> Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403
>> Email: hillary.jett at icann.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','hillary.jett at icann.org');>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org');>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ - your voice for the Open Internet*
>
> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan at internetnz.net.nz');>
> Skype: jordancarter
> Web: www.internetnz.nz
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org');>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>

-- 
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160222/5c431956/attachment-0001.html>