[CCWG-ACCT] Summary of proposals discussed last night in context of Rec. #11

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Feb 2 23:31:24 UTC 2016

Becky, do you foresee the power to be exercised 
including removal of the entire Board (as a 
remedy to action/inaction related to GAC advice). 
If so, that reduced the Board removal threshold 
to three which is at odd with several comments including those of the Board.


At 02/02/2016 05:10 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:

>I have attempted to set out the proposals discussed last night.
>Aresteh Proposal:
>Modify Rec. #11/ Annex 11 to provide that GAC 
>Advice supported by consensus, defined as 
>general agreement in the absence of a formal 
>objection, may be rejected only by a vote of at 
>least 60% of the Board.  All other requirements 
>(e.g., rationale to be provided, etc.) 
>unchanged.  This proposal is strictly limited to 
>Recommendation 11 Annex 11 without any change to 
>Recommendation 1 as it stands on 02 February 2016.
>Hutty Gloss on 60% Threshold:  Add language to 
>ensure that supermajority requirement creates no 
>new expectation of approval or otherwise modify 
>the Board’s standard of review of GAC Advice.
>Burr Proposal:
>·      Modify Rec #1/Annex 1:  Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
>The GAC may not, however, participate as a 
>decision maker in the Empowered Community’s 
>consideration of the exercise a community power 
>for the purpose of challenging or blocking the 
>Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such 
>cases, the GAC remains free to participate in 
>community deliberations in an advisory capacity, 
>but its views will not count towards or against 
>otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a 
>conference call, convene a Community Forum, or 
>exercise a specific Community Power.  This carve 
>out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique 
>obligation to work with the GAC try to find a 
>mutually acceptable solution to implementation 
>of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined 
>in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s 
>power to challenge such Board decisions.
>·      Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to 
>reflect this carve out and add the following 
>language to cover situations that would 
>otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
>The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in 
>a situation where the GAC may not participate as 
>a Decisional AC because the community power is 
>proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s 
>implementation of GAC Advice and the threshold 
>is set at four in support, the power will still 
>be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects.
>Kavouss has asked whether my proposal is paired 
>to a 66% threshold, 60% threshold or simple 
>majority for rejecting GAC Advice.  It is not 
>inconsistent with any of those outcomes.
>J. Beckwith Burr
>Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
>1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
>Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 
>/ <http://www.neustar.biz>neustar.biz
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160202/13eab011/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list