[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Proposed Responses to questions on Draft Bylaws

[Mathieu Weill]

Please note that draft response to question 25 was missing in the circulated 
document. Pasting it here



25. CCWG Counsel and ICANN are not yet in alignment on the language to 
describe how a Petition in the EC process can be identified as based on GAC 
advice.  Initially, “solely” was added to tie the Petition Notice to the GAC 
Consensus Board Resolution.  For example, the ICANN Budget is an 
amalgamation of many different inputs.  If a particular expenditure is 
tangentially related to GAC advice, then the GAC should not be removed from 
voting on that petition. CCWG Counsel has accepted this approach for 
purposes of this draft, with the small addition of “or almost solely”, and 
with the clarification that the EC could undertake two rejection petitions 
at the same time, one narrowly tailored to a GAC Consensus Board Resolution, 
and thus subject to the GAC carve out rule, and one that does not involve a 
GAC Consensus Board Resolution.  It will be helpful to see if the CCWG 
thinks this approach captures the carve out rule, as CCWG understands it. 
ICANN’s concern rests with the issue that “almost solely” is not a generally 
understood standard against which to assess action, and does not provide 
guidance to the community, ICANN or future IRP panels.



CCWG Response : The relevant sections of the Supplemental Report about the 
GAC carve out are :

*	Annex 1 - paragraph 8 and 44

*	Board confirmation: When the Board takes action that is based on GAC 
consensus advice, the Board will need to state in its resolution that its 
decision was based on GAC consensus advice.
*	o GAC carve-out identified in petition to use Community Power: When a 
Board action that is based on GAC consensus advice is challenged, the 
petitioning SO or AC will need to indicate in the initial petition that the 
matter meets the requirements for the GAC carve-out and clearly identify the 
applicable Board action and GAC consensus advice at issue. The decision 
thresholds (as revised when the GAC carve-out is invoked in accordance in 
Annex 2) required for the escalation and enforcement processes will need to 
be met for the Community Power that is being exercised.



Recognizing that different views exist within the CCWG about how a petition 
in the EC process can be identified as based on GAC Advice (solely based, 
entirely or almost entirely based, distinctively based…) and taking into 
account that (a) the Board decides whether to label a decision as based on 
GAC consenses advice; (b) the complaining party decides how to frame their 
complaint to meet the standard in the Bylaws and (c) any improper 
characterization could be subjected to an IRP, the CCWG recommends NOT to 
add any additional details on that process in the Bylaws.





De : accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] De la part de 
Bernard Turcotte
Envoyé : jeudi 7 avril 2016 00:35
À : Accountability Cross Community
Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Proposed Responses to questions on Draft 
Bylaws



All,



Please note that the document includes more than just the questions provided 
by the legal counsel. Be certain to go to the bottom of the document to see 
the additional questions that were included after the questions from legal 
counsel.



Thank You.



Bernard Turcotte

ICANN Staff Support



On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Bernard Turcotte 
<turcotte.bernard at gmail.com> wrote:

All,



Co-chairs and rapporteurs have reviewed and proposed answers to all 
questions some based on the results of the Tuesday April 5th meeting of the 
CCWG-Accountability.



These are attached in preparation for the Thursday April 7th meeting of the 
CCWG-Accountability on this topic.



The CCWG-Accountability Co-chairs Mathieu, Thomas and Leon



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160407/d7aef9d0/attachment.html>