[CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue

Mon Feb 29 17:48:26 UTC 2016

Dear All,
I do not understand why there is so much focus on the GAC.
Let them discuss the matter and come back
I also do not know how one could guzess the decision of GAC being
A decisional Maker
Non decisional maker
Abstansion
Do nothing
They may have different position
Pateince is a good habit
Regards
Kavouss

2016-02-29 18:37 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:

> Hi,
> Just for clarity, I don't think there is/"should be" any complication at
> all, certainly not at this stage. The CCWG proposal was based on 5 EC
> period. Irrespective of what GAC decides later, it's good to understand
> what happens when/if the number of EC increases or reduces from 5 SO/AC.
>
> The CCWG currently implies that the threshold would be reviewed when that
> happen but used the word "may"which I believe creates some uncertainties, I
> believe any other clarification on this can be done during bylaw
> implementation (re: reason why IMO, the discussion of shall vs will is not
> necessary at the moment). What is important now is the COs
> approving(disapproving) the report so we can move forward on next step.
>
> Regards
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
> On 29 Feb 2016 18:22, "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:
>
>> Keith is correct.  The CCWG Proposal leaves this decision to the GAC.
>> But as has been noted many times, the absence of a decision continues to
>> complicate our discussions.
>>
>> *J. Beckwith Burr*
>> *Neustar, Inc.* / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
>> *Office:* +1.202.533.2932  *Mobile:* +1.202.352.6367 */* *neustar.biz*
>> <http://www.neustar.biz>
>>
>> From: <Drazek>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek at verisign.com>
>> Date: Monday, February 29, 2016 at 10:33 AM
>> To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>, "Mueller, Milton L" <
>> milton at gatech.edu>
>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
>>
>> Dear Kavouss,
>>
>>
>>
>> I don’t think anyone is trying to tell the GAC **how** to decide.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rather, it’s a question of timing….there is a recognition that a decision
>> needs to be made prior to the drafting of the bylaws.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
>> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss
>> Arasteh
>> *Sent:* Monday, February 29, 2016 10:17 AM
>> *To:* Mueller, Milton L
>> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> It is not the responsibilty of CCWG to instruct the GAC on how it wishes
>> to participate in the exerciose of the community power.
>>
>> We better leave the issue for those who are eligible and competent to
>> decide .
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Kavouss
>>
>>
>>
>> 2016-02-29 16:12 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>:
>>
>> This discussion is an example of the absurdity of making participation in
>> the empowered community (EC) optional. You were all warned about this
>> months ago. The boundaries of the EC need to be fixed and completely
>> unambiguous. You must be either in or out. There should be no “oh, today I
>> think I am part of it but tomorrow I may not be.” It should not be
>> determined on a case-by-case basis.
>>
>>
>>
>> My understanding is that all 3 SOs are part of the empowered community,
>> as is ALAC. My understanding is that GAC has not decided whether it is in
>> or out. But once it does decide, it should be in or out, full stop, for all
>> cases except the narrow carve out related to GAC advice.
>>
>>
>>
>> If the individual entities who are in the EC (ACs and SOs) do not support
>> a vote to spill the board, reject an IANA review decision, etc. they are
>> voting against it, full stop. They are not “unable to cast a vote.” So a
>> lower threshold never means that there is a chance that one SO or AC can
>> make the decision. The threshold only changes based on whether GAC is in or
>> out.
>>
>>
>>
>> --MM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
>> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Martin
>> Boyle
>> *Sent:* Sunday, February 28, 2016 3:09 PM
>>
>> Kavouss makes a good point:  if views are so divided in the SO/ACs that
>> many are not able to cast a vote, there is an indication that something is
>> wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
>> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss
>> Arasteh
>> *Sent:* 28 February 2016 17:32
>> *To:* Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
>> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
>>
>>
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>> Accruing to some established rule ,out if seven SO/AC, the minimum would
>> be simple majority ( 4) bellow that the process does have no longer any
>> legal validity
>>
>> Ksvouss
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> On 28 Feb 2016, at 00:02, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> <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
>> *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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=y-dpH9KHNATaDkioJkpPMp_4eBreGGShWsyrSrZEq2U&s=GRAaIkH0WTtFuKb6b9BJNgUaeyFdCchVE28Tgna4XT0&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160229/9d05eaee/attachment-0001.html>