[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding what happens if fewer than five of ICANN’s SOs and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community
jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Wed Feb 24 05:22:11 UTC 2016
If there are 4 decisional SOs/ACs instead of 5, then the thresholds all
need to change.
The ones that currently have a threshold of 4 would then require unanimity.
That would be totally unacceptable. It is not consistent with our work to
date or with our report. The report specifically notes that a change from 5
eligible decisional participants leads to threshold changes for this very
On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe this makes sense and can be noted during implementation.
> However, IMO a reduction of participating SO/AC in the "empowered
> community" from 5 to 4 should not cause any need for change since none of
> the exercise of community powers requires more than a threshold 4 and
> considering that 4 still represents over 50%(4/7) of the ICANN community we
> should be fine. So the current threshold proposed from paragraph 25 to 47
> on Annex 2 could still be maintained (ofcourse without any reduction)
> However anything that goes below 4, I expect would make the model
> impractical and require a complete overhaul.
> On 24 Feb 2016 04:39, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
>> Hello All,
>> In response to the question from Brett Schaefer:
>> >> I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment
>> from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a
>> decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the
>> thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC
>> unanimous support to exercise those powers.
>> The Board supports the language in the report, at Page 72 of Annex 2:
>> “The thresholds presented in this document were determined based on this
>> assessment. If fewer than five of ICANN’s SOs and ACs agree to be
>> Decisional Participants, these thresholds for consensus support may be
>> adjusted. Thresholds would also have to be adjusted if ICANN changes to
>> have more SOs or ACs.”
>> The Board’s earlier comment on this issue from Page 5 of our 14 December
>> 2015 Comments to the Third Draft Proposal from the CCWG is as follows:
>> "B. Board Comments and Supporting Rationale on Further Defining Thresholds
>> The thresholds as set out in the Proposal (Pages 22-23) seem well defined
>> for the design of ICANN today. The Board would not support lowering of any
>> of these thresholds because these community powers represent the voice of
>> the ICANN community. A reduction of the threshold could risk that a
>> decision does not reflect the community’s will.
>> While the thresholds seem well defined for the design of ICANN today, the
>> Board recommends further defining the thresholds for exercising community
>> powers in the event that the number of SOs or ACs change. Leaving this
>> issue for future consideration raises the potential for renegotiation of
>> the community thresholds. This potential for renegotiation adds a level
>> of instability and a lack of predictability. As a result, the Board
>> recommends (1) clarifying that the thresholds identified in the Proposal
>> are based on the current structure; and (2) identifying the percentages
>> that will be applied in the event that there is a change in the number of
>> SOs or ACs in the future."
>> When we previously discussed this with the CCWG, we understood from Page
>> 72 of Annex 2 that the CCWG does not want to set percentages and has agreed
>> to revisit the thresholds if the number of participants change.
>> We will further discuss this issue when it becomes clear who the future
>> participants will be, and whether fewer than five of ICANN’s SOs and ACs
>> agree to be Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community.
>> Bruce Tonkin
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
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...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community