<p dir="ltr">Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
On 10 Nov 2015 13:29, "Schaefer, Brett" <<a href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org">Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> 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 ACs and SOs so that we can accurately project for the model.<br>
><br>
> <br>
SO: +1 on this, I think the Co-Chairs should formerly write the SO/AC to know if they will participate.</p>
<p dir="ltr">><br>
> I also think that we need to explore thresholds for various levels of participation for that reason.<br>
><br>
> <br>
SO: Yeah and I thought your suggestion on percentage would have worked but I just figured that it will do a good job on threshold adjustment only if there is a downward review and not a situation where SSAC decides to participate in future as that will instead reduce the required threshold.</p>
<p dir="ltr">One way could be to add a clause that increase the support threshold whenever there is new AC that is not among initial 5 joins.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards<br>
><br>
> Best,<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Brett<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> ________________________________<br>
> Brett Schaefer<br>
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs<br>
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy<br>
> The Heritage Foundation<br>
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br>
> Washington, DC 20002<br>
> 202-608-6097<br>
> <a href="http://heritage.org">heritage.org</a><br>
><br>
> From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>] <br>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 5:51 AM<br>
> To: Seun Ojedeji; Schaefer, Brett<br>
> Cc: <<a href="mailto:wp1@icann.org">wp1@icann.org</a>>; Accountability Cross Community<br>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> 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>
><br>
> 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>
><br>
> Alan <br>
> -- <br>
> Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.<br>
><br>
> On November 10, 2015 1:54:23 AM GMT-03:00, Seun Ojedeji <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> 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>
><br>
> 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>
> That will ensure that percentage is not used on say 3 participating SO/AC or less.<br>
><br>
> Regards<br>
> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
><br>
> On 9 Nov 2015 22:57, "Schaefer, Brett" <<a href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org">Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Jordan,<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> If the model that we are discussing is unworkable under a fairly realistic eventuality that seems to be a critical problem.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> 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>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Best,<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Brett <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> From: Jordan Carter [mailto:<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>] <br>
> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 4:46 PM<br>
> To: Schaefer, Brett<br>
> Cc: Accountability Cross Community; <a href="mailto:wp1@icann.org">wp1@icann.org</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [WP1] Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> hi Brett,<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> 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>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Jordan<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> On 10 November 2015 at 08:34, Schaefer, Brett <<a href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org">Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Jordan,<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> I appreciate the explanation provided in the memo.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> 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>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> 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>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> 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>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> 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>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Thanks,<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Brett <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> From: <a href="mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org">wp1-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org">wp1-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter<br>
> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 5:51 PM<br>
> To: Accountability Cross Community; <a href="mailto:wp1@icann.org">wp1@icann.org</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [WP1] Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> ... and in PDF<br>
><br>
> J<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> On 9 November 2015 at 11:50, Jordan Carter <<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Dear all - for your reading pleasure and for the lists record.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Jordan<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> ________________________________<br>
><br>
> Brett Schaefer<br>
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs<br>
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy<br>
> The Heritage Foundation<br>
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br>
> Washington, DC 20002<br>
> 202-608-6097<br>
> <a href="http://heritage.org">heritage.org</a><br>
><br>
> ________________________________<br>
><br>
> Brett Schaefer<br>
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs<br>
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy<br>
> The Heritage Foundation<br>
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br>
> Washington, DC 20002<br>
> 202-608-6097<br>
> <a href="http://heritage.org">heritage.org</a><br>
><br>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
> From: Gregory, Holly <<a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a>><br>
> Date: 7 November 2015 at 13:48<br>
> Subject: Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator<br>
><br>
> Dear Co-Chairs, Jordan and Staff, <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> 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>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Please let us know if you have any questions.<br>
><br>
> Kind regards, <br>
> Holly and Rosemary<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> --<br>
><br>
> Jordan Carter<br>
><br>
> Chief Executive <br>
> InternetNZ<br>
><br>
><br>
> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)<br>
> Email: <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>
> Skype: jordancarter<br>
><br>
> Web: <a href="http://www.internetnz.nz">www.internetnz.nz</a> <br>
><br>
><br>
> A better world through a better Internet <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> --<br>
><br>
> Jordan Carter<br>
><br>
> Chief Executive <br>
> InternetNZ<br>
><br>
><br>
> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)<br>
> Email: <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>
> Skype: jordancarter<br>
><br>
> Web: <a href="http://www.internetnz.nz">www.internetnz.nz</a> <br>
><br>
><br>
> A better world through a better Internet <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
><br>
> ________________________________<br>
><br>
><br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></p>