[CCWG-ACCT] Updated Proposal Documents Available for Review

Matthew Shears mshears at cdt.org
Mon Feb 22 23:36:38 UTC 2016


Thanks Mike, Brett and Greg - very useful.

On 2/22/2016 11:32 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> On D, to accurately reflect the current text, I believe the word 
> "solely" should be removed.
>
> Agree with Brett, E should be THREE, not FOUR.  There's also an extra 
> "the" before "Board" each time.
>
> Also agree that the issue framed by the Board is THREE vs. FOUR in C 
> and E.
>
> Greg
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Schaefer, Brett 
> <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>> wrote:
>
>     Agree, though point E should be 3, not 4, if it is to reflect the
>     status quo.
>
>     The Board is proposing changing 3 to 4 in points C and E, I believe.
>
>
>     ________________________________
>     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 <tel:202-608-6097>
>     heritage.org <http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org/>
>
>     __________
>
>     On Feb 22, 2016, at 6:01 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu
>     <mailto:milton at gatech.edu><mailto:milton at gatech.edu
>     <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>> wrote:
>
>     Very good summary, as far as I am concerned.
>
>     From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>>
>     [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] On
>     Behalf Of Chartier, Mike S
>     Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 5:15 PM
>     To: Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net
>     <mailto:thomas at rickert.net><mailto:thomas at rickert.net
>     <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>>; Schaefer, Brett
>     <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org
>     <mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org
>     <mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>>>; CCWG-Accountability
>     <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>>
>     Cc: ACCT-STAFF <acct-staff at icann.org
>     <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org><mailto:acct-staff at icann.org
>     <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>>
>     Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Updated Proposal Documents Available for
>     Review
>
>     The relevant language in the draft of the 19th seems awkward at
>     best. It may also be useful to have a table of simple sentences
>     something like below, to clearly capture what people are in
>     support of (or not).
>
>
>     A.    The GAC MAY NOT participate as a decision-maker in community
>     deliberations involving a challenge to the Board’s implementation
>     of GAC consensus advice.
>
>     B.    If an IRP has found that in implementing GAC advice the
>     Board acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws the threshold is
>     set at THREE in support and no more than one objects to recall the
>     entire the Board.
>
>     C.   If an IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in
>     question the threshold is set at THREE in support and no more than
>     one objects to recall the entire the Board.
>
>     D.   If an IRP has found that in implementing GAC advice the Board
>     HAS NOT acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, 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.
>
>     E.    If an IRP has found that in implementing GAC advice the
>     Board HAS NOT acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, the
>     Empowered Community MAY exercise its power to recall the entire
>     the Board based on other grounds and the threshold is set at FOUR
>     in support and no more than one objects.
>
>     From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>>
>     [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] On
>     Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
>     Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 4:18 PM
>     To: Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org
>     <mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org
>     <mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>>>
>     Cc: ACCT-STAFF <acct-staff at icann.org
>     <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org><mailto:acct-staff at icann.org
>     <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>>; CCWG-Accountability
>     <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>>
>     Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Updated Proposal Documents Available for
>     Review
>
>     Brett,
>     we will have the text available and let me also remind you of my
>     response to Larry.
>
>     I said you do not have to join the Board to not be trusted.
>     Becoming a CCWG co-chair is sufficient for that.
>
>     Thought I should share this with you. Let's all try to keep
>     smiling in these challenging days.
>
>     Thomas
>     ---
>     rickert.net <http://rickert.net><http://rickert.net>
>
>
>     Am 22.02.2016 um 22:09 schrieb Schaefer, Brett
>     <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org
>     <mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org
>     <mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>>>:
>     If I could make a small request to the Chairs, I think it would be
>     helpful to have the relevant text under discussion in the center
>     Adobe window tonight so that everyone does not need to page
>     through PDF is a separate window.
>
>     From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>>
>     [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] On
>     Behalf Of Jordan Carter
>     Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 4:41 AM
>     To: Hillary Jett
>     Cc: ACCT-STAFF; CCWG-Accountability
>     Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Updated Proposal Documents Available for
>     Review
>
>     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
>     <mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org><mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org
>     <mailto: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<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
>     <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20674-3403><tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20674-3403>
>     Email: hillary.jett at icann.org
>     <mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org><mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org
>     <mailto:hillary.jett at icann.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 <tel:202-608-6097>
>     heritage.org <http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org/>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>     Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto: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>
>
>
>
>     --
>     Jordan Carter
>
>     Chief Executive
>     InternetNZ - your voice for the Open Internet
>
>     +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><mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>     <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>
>     Skype: jordancarter
>     Web: www.internetnz.nz
>     <http://www.internetnz.nz><http://www.internetnz.nz>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>     Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto: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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- 

Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987

CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160222/f89d7811/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list