<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style>@font-face {
font-family: Calibri;
}
@page WordSection1 {margin: 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; }
P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt
}
LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt
}
A:link {
TEXT-DECORATION: underline; COLOR: blue
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
TEXT-DECORATION: underline; COLOR: blue
}
A:visited {
TEXT-DECORATION: underline; COLOR: purple
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
TEXT-DECORATION: underline; COLOR: purple
}
SPAN.EmailStyle17 {
FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: windowtext
}
.MsoChpDefault {
FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"
}
</style><style id="owaParaStyle">P {
MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN-TOP: 0px
}
</style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" fPStyle="1" ocsi="0">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<p>+1 Excellent summation of the present situation</p>
<div>
<p> </p>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">
<p><strong><font color="#000080">Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal</font></strong></p>
<p><strong><font color="#000080">Virtualaw LLC</font></strong></p>
<p><strong><font color="#000080">1155 F Street, NW</font></strong></p>
<p><strong><font color="#000080">Suite 1050</font></strong></p>
<p><strong><font color="#000080">Washington, DC 20004</font></strong></p>
<p><strong><font color="#000080">202-559-8597/Direct</font></strong></p>
<p><strong><font color="#000080">202-559-8750/Fax</font></strong></p>
<p><strong><font color="#000080">202-255-6172/cell</font></strong></p>
<p><strong><font color="#000080"></font></strong> </p>
<p><em><strong><font color="#000080">"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey</font></strong></em></p>
<p><font color="#000080"></font> </p>
</div>
</div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 16px; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; COLOR: #000000">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF516159" style="DIRECTION: ltr"><font color="#000000" size="2" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of Drazek, Keith [kdrazek@verisign.com]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, November 17, 2015 2:41 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> accountability-cross-community@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CCWG-ACCT] ST-18 and 2/3 Threshold Proposal<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">All,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here are my current thoughts on our ongoing discussions around ST-18, the 2/3 threshold issue, and the GAC’s participation in the community mechanism:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The CCWG’s mandate is to empower the community <u>as a whole</u> to better hold ICANN and its Board accountable. Our mission is not to modify the influence of one SO or AC relative to the Board, or to one another, nor to enable or encourage
such change in the future. This process should not be used by individual groups to seek increased influence relative to others. That’s why we are proposing a unified community as the sole Designator, and set thresholds for decisions supported by multiple ACs
and SOs. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Under the current discussions, it appears that a subset of GAC members want three new “powers” that do not exist today: (1) the right to hold a decisional role in the community mechanism, (2) a 2/3 threshold for Board rejection of consensus
advice, and (3) the ability to adjust the definition of consensus that would trigger the Board’s special obligations. Why is the CCWG now focusing on the 11th-hour introduction of the 2/3 board threshold along with flexibility to change current practice on
the definition of consensus? Both of those stand to increase the influence of the GAC alone over the Board and other community groups.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No one is trying to tell the GAC how to define consensus for its internal deliberations or advice. Rather, ST-18 simply reinforces the current practice that the Board’s obligations kick in only when the GAC’s consensus is consistent with
current practice – reflecting the UN definition/absence of formal objection. Any change to this practice must be viewed as empowering the GAC alone over the Board and potentially in a disproportionate way relative to others.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">By participating in the community mechanism as a co-equal, the GAC will be able to contribute to this joint community empowerment in a decisional way, if it chooses to do so. This is already a big change (that some are uncomfortable with)
but it shows that the rest of the community respects the important role of governments and the GAC in our community processes.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In my view, the CCWG should resist pressure to intentionally or inadvertently increase the relative influence of any one group, and stay focused on the joint community empowerment envisioned in our charter. This should not be an opportunity
for any group to secure individual benefits they have previously been denied.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks and regards,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Keith</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<hr size="1" noshade="">
<a></a>
<p align="left" color="#000000">No virus found in this message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a><br>
Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15<br>
Internal Virus Database is out of date.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>