[CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
avri doria
avri at apc.org
Mon Feb 29 21:00:45 UTC 2016
+1
On 29-Feb-16 15:04, Jordan Carter wrote:
> Hi all
>
> In three versions of the proposal from this group the GAC has been a
> decisional participant. I firmly agree with what Thomas said, that is
> what our proposal says and that is how it has to remain.
>
> We haven't demanded any SO/AC has to say they are in. We have just
> said that we take them out if they insist.
>
> Anything else would be an utter travesty at this point and undermine
> our process.
>
> On the point raised by the letter that started this thread, I only
> re-state my view that IF the list of decisional participants changed,
> THEN the thresholds would have to change, BECAUSE we cannot have a
> situation where formal total unanimity is required to exercise
> community powers.
>
>
> cheers
> Jordan
>
>
> On 1 March 2016 at 07:27, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>
> Unless the GAC can reach a consensus and decide to be “in" the EC,
> it would have to be considered “out” of the EC. If GAC can’t
> decide to accept this new role and its responsibility, we have no
> place on insisting that it does accept this change in its role and
> responsibility. We can’t leave loose ends like this in our report
> without expecting disastrous results - we must have certainty
> about what we are proposing.
>
> Robin
>
>
>> On Feb 29, 2016, at 10:07 AM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com
>> <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
>>
>> +1. The GAC needs to decide whether they want to be in or out of
>> the EC, and the decision time is now.
>>
>> If the GAC can’t reach a consensus on something that basic then
>> trying to use the accountability measures with them in the EC
>> will be like trying to drive a car with the parking brake engaged.
>>
>> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
>> *Virtualaw LLC*
>> *1155 F Street, NW*
>> *Suite 1050*
>> *Washington, DC 20004*
>> *202-559-8597/Direct*
>> *202-559-8750/Fax*
>> *202-255-6172/cell***
>> * *
>> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>>
>> */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
>>
>> *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 *Mueller, Milton L
>> *Sent:* Monday, February 29, 2016 10:12 AM
>> *To:* Martin Boyle; Kavouss Arasteh; Bruce Tonkin
>> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold
>> Issue
>>
>> 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> [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> [mailto: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
>> <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>>
>> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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> [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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/>
>> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4537/11693 - Release Date:
>> 02/25/16
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ *
> *
> *
> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) | Skype: jordancarter
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz> | www.internetnz.nz
> <http://www.internetnz.nz>
> /
> /
> /A better world through a better Internet/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list