[CCWG-ACCT] RES: Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing

Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Fri Jan 29 06:56:45 UTC 2016


Thanks for this conversation on process.

After yesterdays discussion it seems  clear that the eventual change of key parts of the Rec 11 and the CCWG compromise underlying it, would have an important impact, both for those who are proposing it, and for the globality of Governments participating in the GAC.

This would surely require an inclusive discussion and process.

Hence I would kindly ask the Co-Chairs how they would intend to proceed in socializing such a changed proposal with the wider community.

thanks for any guidance

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 29.01.2016 um 07:41 schrieb Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au<mailto:ceo at auda.org.au>>:

Hello All,


I also thought there was something like that in the charter but I have just gone to look at it again and could not find it either.

That is indeed correct. The relevant part of the charter (excising the supplementary proposal bit) is:


"SO and AC support for the Draft Proposal(s)

Following submission of the Draft Proposal(s), each of the chartering organizations shall, in accordance with their own rules and procedures, review and discuss the Draft Proposal(s) and decide whether to adopt the recommendations contained in it. The chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the co-chairs of the WG of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible.

Submission Board Report

After receiving the notifications from all chartering organizations as described above, the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability shall, within 10 working days after receiving the last notification, submit to the Chair of the ICANN Board of Directors and Chairs of all the chartering organizations the CCWG-Accountability Board Report, which shall include at a minimum:

a)     The (Supplemental) Proposal as adopted by the CCWG-Accountability; and

b)     The notifications of the decisions from the chartering organizations

c)     Documentation of the process that was followed, including, but not limited to documenting the process of building consensus within the CCWG-Accountability and public consultations.

In the event one or more of the chartering organizations do(es) not support (parts of) the (Supplemental) Proposal(s), the Board Report shall also clearly indicate the part(s) of the (Supplemental) Final Proposal(s) which are fully supported and the parts which not, and which of the chartering organizations dissents, to the extent this is feasible."

So technically there is nothing to prevent the CCWG from submitting The Proposal adopted only by 3 or 2 or 1 of the Chartering Organisations.

I think the only reference to the requirement for adoption by at least most if not all chartering organisations has been Larry Strickling’s various comments about expecting to receive a consensus proposal and that a proposal with ‘objections’ or ‘expressions of concern’ would not be likely to be be deemed a consensus proposal.


Cheers,


Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer

.au Domain Administration Ltd

T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112

E: ceo at auda.org.au<mailto:ceo at auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au/>

auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator


Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.




On 29 Jan 2016, at 17:25 , Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:


Good question, actually for some reason I also thought there was something like that in the charter but I have just gone to look at it again and could not find it either.

https://community.icann.org/m/mobile.action#page/50823977

Regards

On 28 Jan 2016 10:33 p.m., "Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva" <pedro.ivo at itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:pedro.ivo at itamaraty.gov.br>> wrote:
Dear Keith,

>>> "My understanding is that the CCWG proposal can be finalized and approved with 4 of 5 chartering organizations in support. "

Thanks for sharing your understanding. However, could you point to the specific text in the CCWG Charter where this threshold (4 out of 5) is defined? I couldn't find it.

Thanks!

Regards,

Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI)
Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil
T: + 55 61 2030-6609<tel:%2B%2055%2061%202030-6609>

Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
Division of Information Society (DI)
Ministry of External Relations - Brazil
T: + 55 61 2030-6609<tel:%2B%2055%2061%202030-6609>



-----Mensagem original-----
De: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] Em nome de Drazek, Keith
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 28 de janeiro de 2016 19:05
Para: Andrew Sullivan; accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Assunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing

Hi Andrew,

My understanding is that the CCWG proposal can be finalized and approved with 4 of 5 chartering organizations in support. So, a single organization in opposition *should* not scuttle the package.

It's unclear to me what happens if one chartering organization is silent and another opposed, leaving only 3 in support.  Probably a question for the Co-Chairs.

Regards,
Keith


-----Original Message-----
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto: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 Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 3:58 PM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing

Dear colleagues,

I was going to make a comment on the call today, but in the interests of time I took myself out of the queue.  This note replaces what I wanted to say.

For those chartering organizations and individuals that wish to reject the compromise, I have a question.  If the proposed compromise position on recommendation 11 is rejected, there is a good reason to suppose that at least one important part of the community (the GAC) will reject the accountability proposal.  That will conceivably scuttle the transition; and in the absence of a consensus on the accountability measures, there is no reason to suppose we'll get the additional powers that are in the current text (incuding the Empowered Community).  Is it worth it to give up those additional powers to prevent the 2/3 board threshold, given that the additional powers provide a way to foil truly bad decisions anyway?

As I understand things, we are in a trap.  On the one hand, the GAC has produced a consensus position that the board must reject GAC advice by a supermajority.  And indeed, as things are, the ICANN board has a difficult time even under the current arrangements when it decides to reject GAC advice.  Yet the GAC is currently free to rearrange its own procedures such that it could lower its own threshold for decisions.  Therefore, the consensus position of the GAC represents a grave threat to the transition.  The current state of affairs is in any case not that hot; and the GAC could unilaterally make that current state of affairs worse.

The compromise proposal does a few things.  It is true that it increases the threshold for the board to reject GAC advice.  But in exchange for that, it enshrines the GAC's responsibility to the rest of the ICANN community as to how the GAC will reach decisions.  This means that, in exchange for the increased threshold -- a threshold that I think will be easy to reach regardless of the actual numbers on the board in any case that counts -- the GAC is giving up independent control over its decision-making procedures when exercising that threshold.  In that way, it is actually an improvement of GAC's covenant with the ICANN community.

Moreover, let us suppose that the GAC produced advice that the board decided to accept, but the rest of the community found that objectionable.  In that case, the rest of the community could force the board not to take the advice _anyway_, because of the additional accountability measures that this CCWG wants to put in place.

The compromise proposal is not perfect -- I too would prefer not to have the 2/3 rule -- but one does not expect complete satisfaction from a compromise.  And it should be surprising to no-one that it came rather late: each side wants something pretty big, and both appear to be dug in.  This means that each will need to give something up.
That's what deals look like.  And we need a deal, and soon, because we need to move ahead with the IANA transition.

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list