[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