[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding what happens if fewer than five o f ICANNâ€™s SOs and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Wed Feb 24 09:17:14 UTC 2016
Thanks for the clarification Alan. @Jordan since we won't be writing four
decisional participants into the bylaw (as per current proposal which is
based on 5) then i think you don't have to worry. If in the unlikely
situation one of the 5 decide not to participate any longer before writing
5 into the bylaw then i guess there will be a CCWG call to review the
threshold (including entire model if necessary) to be re-ratified by the
What i just wanted to confirm is that there won't be automatic reduction in
threshold without community consultation once the bylaw of 5 is in place
and Alan has rightly responded to that.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:34 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> I am saying that if we write bylaws that have four decisional
> participants, those bylaws won't have thresholds of four to exercise any
> community power. That is very clearly the intent of our work to date.
> So if we find out - possibly through the ratification process for the
> proposal - that anyone declines to participate who we have assumed will (or
> those who have said they will not, change their minds), then we have to
> revisit the thresholds.
> We have plenty of chance to do that, because all of the bylaws changes
> require full community consultation and debate etc.
> I would not want anyone to be mistaken about the importance of getting
> this right. I will certainly strongly advocate that this proposal be
> rejected by the ccNSO if there is *any* prospect of general powers
> requiring unanimity.
> On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>> The Bylaws governing such thresholds are part of the Empowered Community
>> creation and thus Fundamental Bylaws. They will require the approval of the
>> Empowered Community to change.
>> At 24/02/2016 12:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>> That's fine Jordan, but just to be clear, such change(reduction/increase
>> in threshold as applicable) will only occur when the community come
>> together to agree again right? i.e the current CCWG proposal does not say
>> if the "empowered community" becomes 4, then the thresholds automatically
>> reduces. I hope that is not what you are communicating.
>> On 24 Feb 2016 06:22, "Jordan Carter" <jordan at internetnz.net.nz > wrote:
>> Seun, all,
>> 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
>> 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 >
>> 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
>> <http://??>> wrote:
>> 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:
>> â€œThe thresholds presented in this document were determined based on
>> this assessment. If fewer than five of ICANNâ€™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.â€
>> The Boardâ€™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
>> "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 communityâ€™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 ICANNâ€™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 <http://??>
>> Jordan Carter
>> Chief Executive, InternetNZ
>> +64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> Jordan Carter
> Chief Executive, InternetNZ
> +64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community