<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Folks:<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I'd like to propose an amendment to the Community Decision-making Process. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class="">In the case where an issue being considered most directly relates to a specific Supporting Organization, we should require support of that SO in order to utilize a community action. For example, if the community is considering blocking a change to a standard Bylaw -- Article IX of the ICANN Bylaws (CCNSO) -- we should ensure that the CCNSO supports using a community action in order to move forward. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In the case of blocking ICANN's budget, which includes the specific amount gTLD registration fees, the GNSO must support using that community process. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In the case of an ASO related IRP issue, the ASO must support before the community makes a decision binding. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We should require the specific SO at issue plus at least 50% of the other SOs and ACs participating in the decision in order for the community decision process is invoked. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">To do otherwise, we risk tyranny of the majority being used against the group most impacted by a decision. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Of course, in the case where there is no SO that is predominantly at issue, we should go with a certain requirement of support that we already have been discussing. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We also would need to figure out how to handle a dispute of which SO is predominant. Regardless of how we handle that issue, we should ensure that the SO most impacted by use of community powers are in support. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Jon</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><div class="">
<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 10, 2015, at 9:44 AM, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" class="">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<div class="">
No misunderstanding. I was replying to Seun who raised the case of some
AC/SOs choosing not to participate in a particular issue.<br class=""><br class="">
Alan<br class=""><br class="">
At 10/11/2015 07:29 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote:<br class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Alan, <br class="">
<br class="">
I think there is a bit of misunderstanding. I’m not talking about a
participating SO or AC choosing to abstain or make no decision. That is
anticipated in the model. Abstention, as far as I understand it, is not
considered either opposition or support for the purposes of exercising
the community powers – in other words iit does not count for the
thresholds either in support or against. <br class="">
<br class="">
I’m talking about situations like SSAC, where a AC decides not to
participate at all. Most seem to believe that RSSAC will likewise decide
not to participate. <br class="">
<br class="">
But the assumption is that GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, ALAC, and GAC will. This is
why everyone is assuming that we will have 5 participating entities in
the community mechanism. <br class="">
<br class="">
But if GAC or one of the others decides otherwise or simple cannot reach
consensus on participating for some length of time, we would only have 4
or even fewer participating entities. In the first situation, using those
four community powers would require community unanimity. In the second,
the community would not be able to exercise those powers at all. <br class="">
<br class="">
That is why I suggested getting confirmation of intent to participate –
acknowledging that this would not be an endorsement of the CCWG proposal
– from the ACss and SOs so that we can accurately project for the model.
<br class="">
<br class="">
I also think that we need to explore thresholds for various levels of
participation for that reason. <br class="">
<br class="">
Best,<br class="">
<br class="">
Brett <br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class=""><br class="">
<hr class="">
Brett Schaefer<br class="">
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory
Affairs<br class="">
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
Security and Foreign Policy<br class="">
<font size="2" color="#58595B" class="">The Heritage Foundation<br class="">
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br class="">
Washington, DC 20002</font><br class="">
202-608-6097<br class="">
<font size="2" color="#004B8D" class=""><a href="http://heritage.org/" class="">
heritage.org</a><br class=""><br class="">
</font><b class="">From:</b> Alan Greenberg
[<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" eudora="autourl" class="">
mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>] <br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b> Tuesday, November 10, 2015 5:51 AM<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b> Seun Ojedeji; Schaefer, Brett<br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <<a href="mailto:wp1@icann.org" class="">wp1@icann.org</a>>; Accountability Cross Community<br class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Updated Memo on Request on Sole
Designator<br class="">
<br class="">
There is a huge difference between an AC/SO that has explicitly said it
will not participate at all and one that decides to not state a position
on exercising a power in a particular instance. The latter IS
participating by neither supporting nor opposing the action. Without
sufficient ACTIVE support, the action dies.<br class=""><br class="">
In the extreme, option 2 will allow one AC/SO to exercise a power on its
own, since 1 is greater than 75% of 1.<br class=""><br class="">
Alan <br class="">
-- <br class="">
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.<br class="">
On November 10, 2015 1:54:23 AM GMT-03:00, Seun Ojedeji
<<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" class="">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>
> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">
Hi,<br class=""><br class="">
I think lowering the threshold may still bring us to a deadlock since we
are not always certain whether all will participate at any point in time.
Allowing splitting votes is out of discussion as we have agreed to go by
consensus.<br class=""><br class="">
Option 2 IMO seem to be a good thing to explore further and in order to
ensure that is not abused, an overall minimum total number of
participating SO/AC should be set. So if that minimum is not achieved
then there is no need to check those in support or against. I think a
minimum number of 4 may be in order.<br class="">
That will ensure that percentage is not used on say 3 participating SO/AC
or less. <br class=""><br class="">
Regards<br class="">
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br class="">
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br class="">
On 9 Nov 2015 22:57, "Schaefer, Brett"
<<a href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org" class="">
Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a>> wrote:<br class="">
Jordan,<br class="">
<br class="">
If the model that we are discussing is unworkable under a fairly
realistic eventuality that seems to be a critical problem.<br class="">
<br class="">
In my opinion, it requires consideration of: (1) lowering the thresholds
to three if there are only four participating entities; (2) shifting
minimum thresholds from 4 entities in support to, instead, at least 75
percent of the participating entities in support; or (3) allowing the
splitting of votes to surmount existing thresholds. <br class="">
<br class="">
Best, <br class="">
<br class="">
Brett <br class="">
<br class="">
<b class="">From:</b> Jordan Carter
[<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" eudora="autourl" class="">
mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>] <br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b> Monday, November 09, 2015 4:46 PM<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b> Schaefer, Brett<br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> Accountability Cross Community;
<a href="mailto:wp1@icann.org" class="">wp1@icann.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b> Re: [WP1] Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator<br class="">
<br class="">
hi Brett,<br class="">
<br class="">
Such matrices of decision are not being drafted. If you are able to
attend the call in around ~15 hours, I think it would be useful to talk
this through. As I've said before, if we are down to four SO/ACs
participating, to my mind that's too small an orbit to use the current
model. <br class="">
<br class="">
Jordan<br class="">
<br class="">
On 10 November 2015 at 08:34, Schaefer, Brett
<<a href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org" class="">
Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a>> wrote:<br class="">
Jordan,<br class="">
<br class="">
I appreciate the explanation provided in the memo. <br class="">
<br class="">
However, I note that the decision matrix remains unchanged in that it
requires support from 4 SOs/ACs to exercise powers 1, 2, 5, and 7. The
operating assumption is that GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, and ALAC will participate.
I believe that they will, but it would be good to get confirmation even
with the knowledge that such a statement should not be considered an
endorsement of the CCWG proposal. <br class="">
<br class="">
Also, as we discussed in the previous CCWG WP1 call, there is a possible
complication if RSSAC, as expected, decides not to participate and GAC
either (1) decides not to participate, (2) decides not to participate
immediately, but announces its desire to be allowed participate at some
future date, or (3) cannot reach a consensus position. <br class="">
<br class="">
In that case, unanimous support by the 4 SOs/ACs assumed above to
participate would be required in order to exercise powers 1,2, 5, and 7.
I don’t think that unanimous support was supposed to be required for
exercise of the community powers. <br class="">
<br class="">
Until we have confirmation of which SOs and ACs (other than SSAC which
has explicitly stated its intention not to participate) will be
participating in the mechanism, we need to plan out possible scenarios.
For this reason, I think we need to provide decision matrices based on
varying levels of participation. Is this being drafted? <br class="">
<br class="">
Thanks,<br class="">
<br class="">
Brett <br class="">
<br class="">
<b class="">From:</b>
<a href="mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org" class="">wp1-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl" class="">
mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b class="">On Behalf Of </b>Jordan Carter<br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b> Sunday, November 08, 2015 5:51 PM<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b> Accountability Cross Community;
<a href="mailto:wp1@icann.org" class="">wp1@icann.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b> Re: [WP1] Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator<br class="">
<br class="">
... and in PDF<br class="">
J<br class="">
<br class="">
On 9 November 2015 at 11:50, Jordan Carter
<<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" class="">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>
> wrote:<br class="">
Dear all - for your reading pleasure and for the lists record.<br class="">
<br class="">
Jordan<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<b class="">Brett</b> <b class="">Schaefer</b><i class=""><br class="">
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory
Affairs<br class="">
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
Security and Foreign Policy</i><br class="">
The Heritage Foundation<br class="">
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br class="">
Washington, DC 20002<br class="">
202-608-6097<br class="">
<a href="http://heritage.org/" class="">heritage.org</a><br class="">
<br class="">
<b class="">Brett</b> <b class="">Schaefer</b><i class=""><br class="">
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory
Affairs<br class="">
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
Security and Foreign Policy</i><br class="">
The Heritage Foundation<br class="">
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br class="">
Washington, DC 20002<br class="">
202-608-6097<br class="">
<a href="http://heritage.org/" class="">heritage.org</a><br class="">
---------- Forwarded message ----------<br class="">
From: <b class="">Gregory, Holly</b>
<<a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com" class="">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a>
><br class="">
Date: 7 November 2015 at 13:48<br class="">
Subject: Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator<br class="">
Dear Co-Chairs, Jordan and Staff, <br class="">
<br class="">
Attached please find a substantially reorganized and revised memo on
how the Sole Designator would be made operational, to replace the
memo that was sent to you last week. The changes are largely in the
nature of clarifications and we have addressed the point requested below
as well. We request that this memo be posted to replace the prior
memo. <br class="">
<br class="">
Please let us know if you have any questions.<br class=""><br class="">
Kind regards, <br class="">
Holly and Rosemary <br class="">
<br class="">
<br class=""><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
-- <br class="">
Jordan Carter<br class=""><br class="">
Chief Executive <br class="">
<b class="">InternetNZ<br class="">
</b><br class="">
<a href="tel:%2B64-4-495-2118" class="">+64-4-495-2118</a> (office) |
<a href="tel:%2B64-21-442-649" class="">+64-21-442-649</a> (mob)<br class="">
Email:
<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" class="">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>
<br class="">
Skype: jordancarter<br class="">
Web: <a href="http://www.internetnz.nz/" class="">www.internetnz.nz</a> <br class=""><br class="">
<i class="">A better world through a better Internet <br class="">
</i> <br class=""><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
-- <br class="">
Jordan Carter<br class=""><br class="">
Chief Executive <br class="">
<b class="">InternetNZ<br class="">
</b><br class="">
<a href="tel:%2B64-4-495-2118" class="">+64-4-495-2118</a> (office) |
<a href="tel:%2B64-21-442-649" class="">+64-21-442-649</a> (mob)<br class="">
Email:
<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" class="">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>
<br class="">
Skype: jordancarter<br class="">
Web: <a href="http://www.internetnz.nz/" class="">www.internetnz.nz</a> <br class=""><br class="">
<i class="">A better world through a better Internet <br class="">
</i> <br class=""><br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" class="">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br class="">
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl" class="">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br class=""><br class="">
<hr class="">
<br class=""><br class="">
<pre class="">Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" class="">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl" class="">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre></blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" class="">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>