[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - New reference text for Recommendation 11 with Clarifications

Bernard Turcotte turcotte.bernard at gmail.com
Tue Feb 9 01:03:55 UTC 2016


*​(Note this email is based on the one sent Friday but includes the
clarifications developed on the Monday 8 February call)​*

As agreed on the call
​Friday 5 February​
 please find the new reference text for Recommendation 11 which will be
considered by the CCWG at its next full meeting on February 9th (12:00 UTC)
to confirm, or not, if it is a consensus position of the

To assist you in considering the proposal you will find below a summary of
the changes that are being recommended
​ as well as the clarifications agreed to on the special call of Monday 8
 In addition to this, and given these changes require modifications to
Recommendations 1 and 2, which have been finalized, please find attached
the finalized versions of Recommendations 1 and 2 with the proposed changes
noted in red line. Given Recommendation 11 is not yet finalized the current
draft which includes the most recent amendments (no new obligations,
rationale and conformity with ICANN Bylaws)
​ ​
is provided with the changes from 2/3rds to 60% being red lined in this
version. A proposed draft text in para 22 has been added
​ in red line​
to explain the changes in Recommendation 11

*Summary of changes:*

1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2

·    Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1:

*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:

*(para 51) 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. *

2.  Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of GAC
advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority requirement is
not intended to create any presumption or modify the standard applied by
the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. (60% replaced 2/3rds where appropriate –
added draft para 22 for consistency)

3.  During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 February)

·     Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described   above as
first final reading;

·     Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above as
first final reading; and

·    Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above as
first final reading.

4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for *final consideration* (2nd final
reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, noting delicate
balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach consensus and
recommending adoption “as is” (assuming consensus on Dedicated
Recommendation 11 calls).

*CCWG-Accountability - Clarifications for Recommendation 11 Compromise
proposal (Kavous-Becky)*


·The carve out may only apply to community challenges to ICANN board
decisions that were based on GAC advice to the Board, where that GAC advice
was "approved by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection.”.
The carve out would not apply to challenges based on GAC advice that was
not “approved by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection.

 ·Identifying GAC advice applicable to use of the carve out:

o   GAC confirmation - Would apply to GAC advice to the Board that was
designated as consensus advice that was "approved by general agreement in
the absence of any formal objection.”

o   Board confirmation - Could only apply to board decisions where the
Board states in its required rationale that its decision was mainly or
solely based on GAC advice that was "approved by general agreement in the
absence of any formal objection.”.

o Should the petitioning SO or AC consider that the carve-out is
applicable, it needs to state so while petitioning the other decisional
participants, and needs to clearly identify which consensus GAC advice and
which Board decisions support proposing using the carve out.  The community
power requested in the petition would need to be approved according to the
decision thresholds indicated for the Empowered Community.

   - Timing for invoking the carve out – The use of this carve out would
   need to be included in the petition to the Empowered Community, and would
   therefore be subject to the timing restrictions applicable to the
   escalation process (e.g. requiring a decisional participant to approve a
   petition within 21 days of a Board decision being published).    While this
   addresses timing of the board challenge, note that the board decision that
   is being challenged could be based on standing advice that the GAC had
   provided at an earlier date.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160208/58058889/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CCWGV4-Annex 1-FinalV1.0-BT-TC-PorposedChangesForRec11.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 374250 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160208/58058889/CCWGV4-Annex1-FinalV1.0-BT-TC-PorposedChangesForRec11-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CCWGV4-Annex 2-FinalDraftV0.9-BT-TC-ProposedChangesForRec11.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 611562 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160208/58058889/CCWGV4-Annex2-FinalDraftV0.9-BT-TC-ProposedChangesForRec11-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Rec 11 - Third reading conclusion v6-BT-TC-ThirdReadingConclusionsIncludedPlusCompromise.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 404955 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160208/58058889/Rec11-Thirdreadingconclusionv6-BT-TC-ThirdReadingConclusionsIncludedPlusCompromise-0001.pdf>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list