[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding what happens if fewer than five o f ICANNâ?Ts SOs and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community
nigel at channelisles.net
Wed Feb 24 13:37:01 UTC 2016
Clearly, if I've learned nothing from this, it is that a flurry of
disagreement can be reframed as full consensus without consequences.
I shall remember this as a useful technique.
On 24/02/16 13:11, Edward Morris wrote:
> Well said. Completely agree.
> *From*: "Salaets, Ken" <ksalaets at itic.org>
> *Sent*: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 1:09 PM
> *To*: "Jordan Carter" <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> *Cc*: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org"
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject*: Re: [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
> This is territory that has been covered time and again, but it should be
> clear to everyone that we still do not have agreement or, perhaps more
> accurately, the requisite commitments from all parties. Without such,
> we are being set up for future debates, frustrations and
> misunderstandings that, if past is indeed prologue, will lead to further
> marginalization of the accountability objectives that we initially
> established for this process.
> If a clear, solid agreement doesn't get locked into place now, it will
> never get locked into place, and those who have never truly bought into
> the notion that additional accountability is essential or desirable will
> continue to walk us back.
> It was suggested earlier that those who have expressed frustrations with
> this activity perhaps don't understand how international negotiations
> work and what's required to reach an agreement. After spending 15-plus
> years engaging in negotiations of various sorts globally, I understand
> completely. When those leading a process are perceived to place higher
> priority on arbitrary deadlines or achieving any semblance of an
> agreement for agreement's sake, the outcome will be unbalanced and the
> opportunity missed.
> It is essential that clear, concise language on how and when thresholds
> are to be adjusted be explicitly included in any final agreement and via
> corresponding amendments to ICANN's governing documents. All parties
> should be willing to agree to this. If not, then it would be wise to
> question what exactly has been achieved via this latest round of
> Happy Wednesday.
> On Feb 24, 2016, at 1:36 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:
>> 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 <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>> wrote:
>> 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 >
>>> 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 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 reason.
>>> 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 <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 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 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
>>> 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
>>> Bruce Tonkin
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <http://??>
>>> Jordan Carter
>>> Chief Executive, InternetNZ
>>> +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | 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
>> <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community