[CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue

Sun Feb 28 20:48:40 UTC 2016

Is this at all realistic.  We have commitments from the 3 SOs and ALAC has
fought tooth and nail to be included.  The idea that there will be fewer
than 4 decisional participants in the EC is . well, much less likely than
the Board's adoption of GAC advice :)

P

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl
e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=em
ail&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016> 

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce
Tonkin
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2016 6:03 PM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue

Hello Keith,

I assume there also needs to be some lower limit of participants that
applies to the concept of "preventing the need for unanimous support".

Taking an extreme case,  what if only one SO or AC "chooses" to be part of
the decisional process?   Every decision taken would be unanimous by
default.   

How many participants of the 7 SOs and ACs makes a viable Empowered
Community?  Should it be 2, 3, or 4.   I hope we get at least 4 out of 7 for
it  to genuinely represent a significant portion of the community.

So rather than "If fewer than 5", it could be "If at least 4"

Regards,

Bruce Tonkin

From: 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
Drazek, Keith
Sent: Sunday, 28 February 2016 7:04 AM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> 
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue

Hi Thomas, Mathieu and Leon. I'm submitting the following on behalf of the
undersigned members/participants from the GNSO:

---------------------------------------------

Dear CCWG-Accountability Chairs,

We are very concerned with the response of the Board to the request for
clarification regarding the need to adjust the thresholds for the Empowered
Community to exercise its powers if the number of decisional participants is
less than 5 SOACs. Currently the text in Annex 1 and 2 regarding this
possibility is ambiguous:

"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 may also have to be adjusted if ICANN changes to have more SOs or
ACs."

In our view, there is no question that the thresholds must be adjusted if
there are fewer than five decisional participants. We have acknowledged
repeatedly and operated under the assumption that there should not be a
requirement of unanimous support for the Empowered Community to exercise its
powers. Yet, if there are less than five decisional participants, unless the
thresholds are adjusted it would require unanimous support for the Empowered
Community to:

*        Reject a proposed Operating Plan/Strategic Plan/Budget;

*        Recall the entire Board of Directors; and

*        Reject an ICANN Board decision relating to reviews of IANA
functions, including the triggering of any PTI separation process.

These powers are central to ensuring that ICANN remains accountable to the
Empowered Community. This matter is too critical to the primary purpose of
the CCWG-Accountability proposal to remain unclear. As the Board has noted
in its own formal comments, "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."

Although it has a superficial resemblance to the recent debate over
thresholds in the GAC carve-out, we believe it is fundamentally different.
There is a great distinction between an SO or AC choosing to not
participate, and an SO or AC being blocked from participation in a specific
instance, as was the case in the case of the GAC carve-out. We were willing
to accept a unanimous threshold for Board recall in the unique circumstances
of the GAC carve-out, where the GAC was blocked from participation, but we
believe firmly that if any SO or AC elects, whether through a conscious
decision or an inability to decide, to not participate, then the
non-unanimity principle must be upheld. 

However, as we saw with the debate over the thresholds in the GAC carve-out,
this could be a contentious issue. It is far better to resolve this matter
now (and during the drafting of bylaws), prior to the official transfer of
the proposal to NTIA, than to delay it when it could have significant
negative ramifications on the transition through a failure to resolve it
during the implementation phase. 

Therefore, we respectfully request that the current text in Annex 1 and
Annex 2 be edited to replace "may" with "shall" and add an additional
explanatory clause:

"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 shall be adjusted to
prevent the need for unanimous support among the decisional Participants to
exercise any of the seven Community powers. Thresholds may also have to be
adjusted if ICANN changes to have more SOs or ACs."

Signed,

Phil Corwin

Steve DelBianco

Keith Drazek

James Gannon

Robin Gross

Ed Morris

Brett Schaefer

Greg Shatan

Matthew Shears

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160228/5e0cee4a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2849 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160228/5e0cee4a/image001-0001.png>