[CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps
Chartier, Mike S
mike.s.chartier at intel.com
Thu Feb 18 01:18:57 UTC 2016
I’m not sure either text actually states what the exception is to the reduced threshold.
The proposed text states situations where the reduced threshold would continue to apply; and the suggestion from Brett, likewise doesn’t seem to give an exception to the reduced threshold.
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Schaefer, Brett
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 4:48 PM
To: Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps
Thank you. I assume this is the text relevant to the discussion over the past several days?
Annex 02 - Recommendation #2
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional Participant because the Community Power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC consensus 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 , with the following exception. Where the power to be exercised is recalling the entire Board for implementing GAC advice, the reduced threshold would apply only either (1) after an IRP has found that, in implementing GAC advice, the Board acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, or (2) if the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question. If the Empowered Community has brought such an IRP and does not prevail, the Empowered Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire the Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. It may, however, exercise that power based on other grounds.
I do not agree with the notion that if the IRP does not prevail, that the Empowered Community cannot proceed to recall the Board based on that matter. Also, I’m not sure what the language saying, “It may, however, exercise that power based on other grounds” is intended to mean. Of course a failed IRP should not bind other/future efforts to spill the Board. Overall, it seems too convoluted.
When Bruce floated this proposal we had this exchange on the list (Saturday 7:27 EST):
>> The only change is that the EC would be required to go to an IRP process first before moving to spill the Board?
That is correct, and only in the case of the GAC-carve out scenario.
Taking that into account, this version would seem to more directly and simply address the matter at hand:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional Participant because the Community Power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC consensus 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, with the following exception. Prior to exercising its power to recall the entire Board, if the relevant matter was one where the Empowered Community alleges that a Board decision violated ICANN Bylaws or Articles, the Empowered Community must first initiate a binding community Independent Review Process (IRP).
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 4:09 PM
To: Accountability Cross Community
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] report and next steps
We wanted to inform you that the revisions have been made from the comments that have been received from the lawyers, several community members, and from the 16 February call. These have been incorporated into the sections that were noted. The graphics are being revised and will be placed in the final version of the text per the suggestions that have been submitted to date.
The revised sections have been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw for your final review. We have also posted a documents that tracks all the comments — and subsequent changes made — between the 12 February and 17 February documents.
The schedule presented on the 16 February call that we are following to conclude our current work on Work Stream 1 has been updated.
12 Feb — Report sent by 22:00 UTC to the CCWG Leadership Team and CCWG Legal Counsel for review with all materials posted on the Wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw) for everyone to view.
15 Feb — Report updated (if needed) to incorporate edits from CCWG Leadership Team and Legal.
17 Feb— Report sent to CCWG for 48-hour review (and posted on the Wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
To ensure that all comments from our CCWG Leadership Team and Legal counsel were accurately incorporated for the full group review period, distribution to the CCWG was updated to 17 Feb. To maintain the 48-hour review period, all subsequent proposal finalization dates have been extended one day. All other dates have been retained.
18 Feb at 17:00 UTC – Minority statements due for incorporation into Final Report.
19 Feb – Final Report sent to Chartering Organizations for consideration and approval.
Once the Final Report is in the hands of your organizations, these are the expected dates for the final steps, as we discussed on the Transition Program Facilitation<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transition-facilitation-2015-09-23-en> call this past Tuesday:
25 Feb – CWG-Stewardship sign-off letter delivered to Chartering Organizations, then to ICG.
By 9 Mar at the latest – Sign-off on Final Report by Chartering Organizations at ICANN55 in Marrakech (in time for the Board to consider).
10 Mar – Public Board Meeting and hand over from ICANN Board to NTIA.
Based on the updated schedule, minority statements must be submitted no later than 18 February at 17:00 UTC to allow for the final supplemental proposal to be produced and ready for distribution to the Chartering Organizations on 19 February.
If you have any questions about our timeline or suggestions for our process, please let us know how we can assist.
Mathieu, León and Thomas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community