<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">In response to Thomas's note:</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Thomas Rickert <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net" target="_blank">thomas@rickert.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Keith, all,<br>
below you find a quick summary of where we are on this with respect
to our report:<br>
<br>
- GAC is a decisional participant unless we get a clear signal (as
from RSAC and SSAC) that they don't want to be one.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">I had thought that GAC had to make a decision about whether or not to be a decisional participant. If what you say is true, GAC will be a decisional participant unless they come to a full consensus decision that are not a decisional participant. I hope that GAC will go one better than that, and affirm that they are a decisional participant and are committed to meaningful participation in the decisional mechanism of the EC.</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
- All decisional particants can vote yes, no, abstain or do nothing.
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">I'm unclear whether there is any substantive difference between "abstaining" and "doing nothing." It would be unfortunate if we had any decisional participant that was "in" because it could not decide to get out, and then "did nothing" because it could not decide to do anything else. We would then end up with de facto unanimity required where the threshold is 4. There may be no way to prevent that, but the way to reduce the likelihood of such an outcome would be to require each decisional participant to opt in. That is one of the reasons we need a decision from the GAC.</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
- If there is a change in structure, i.e. a decisional participants
does not further want to be one, an SO / AC is closed down or if
there is an addition, we need a bylaw change. This is what the group
responded to the Board's wish to include percentages. The CCWG
refused percentages as we need a bylaw change anyway if a change is
taking place. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">I agree with this entirely -- if one of the 5 presumed participants opts out or closes down, "we need a bylaw change." Unfortunately, the Proposal doesn't say that -- if it did, this request would not have been made. Instead the report says we "may" need a change (which also leaves open the possibility we "may not" need a change). We merely seek to clarify this understanding by changing "may" to "shall" (or "must" or "will") to eliminate the unintended "wiggle room" that could result in</div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
- Should the Board refuse to make / support a required bylaw change,
we have the tools in our report.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Again I agree -- but we don't have a "required" bylaw change stemming from our proposal, because we have the word "may" and not the word "shall/must/will." </div> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">We seek only to clarify that a bylaw change will be "required' under these circumstances.</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
- Any clarification needed to that effect can be made during the
implementation phase.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Why wait when we can nip this in the bud? If it's a mere clarification, then it should be noncontroversial. I fear that some who oppose this very much like the wiggle room the word "may" affords them, and will use it to oppose any such change if and when the time comes. Furthermore, it's far from clear how much control we will have during the implementation process in order to make such change. I recognize this is a bit messy and thus undesirable from a process management perspective -- but leaving open an option (no change) that was clearly unintended by the broad majority of the group is also undesirable. I think there's a very real chance we will only have 4 decisional participants, and we're better off preparing for that now.</div></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Thomas<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<div>Am 27.02.2016 um 21:03 schrieb Drazek,
Keith:<br>
</div>
</div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Hi
Thomas, Mathieu and Leon. I’m submitting the following on
behalf of the undersigned members/participants from the
GNSO:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">---------------------------------------------<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Dear
CCWG-Accountability Chairs,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">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:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:2.25pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">“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.”<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">In
our view, there is no question that the thresholds
<i>must</i> 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:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#1f497d"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Reject
a proposed Operating Plan/Strategic Plan/Budget;<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#1f497d"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Recall
the entire Board of Directors; and<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#1f497d"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Reject
an ICANN Board decision relating to reviews of IANA
functions, including the triggering of any PTI separation
process.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">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.”<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">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 <b><i>choosing</i></b> to not
participate, and an SO or AC being
<b><i>blocked</i></b> 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 <b><i>elects</i></b>, whether
through a conscious decision or an inability to decide, to
not participate, then the non-unanimity principle must be
upheld.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">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.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">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:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">“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 </span><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:red">shall</span></i></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:red">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">be
adjusted
</span><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:red">to
prevent the need for unanimous support among the
decisional Participants to exercise any of the seven
Community powers</span></i></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">.
Thresholds may also have to be adjusted if ICANN changes to
have more SOs or ACs.”<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Signed,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Phil
Corwin<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Steve
DelBianco<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Keith
Drazek<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">James
Gannon<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Robin
Gross<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Ed
Morris<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Brett
Schaefer<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Greg
Shatan<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Matthew
Shears<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
</div></div><span class=""><pre>_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
</pre>
</div>
<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>