[CCWG-ACCT] recap and next steps?

Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
Sun Feb 21 16:02:28 UTC 2016



You werent' on call # 83 - where the decision to accept a compromise package
was made.  The consensus was to accept two points:  a 60% threshold for GAC
advice to be rejected by the Board and a carveout that prevented the GAC
from voting on EC actions regarding its own advice:


If we are going to revisit the carve out, we will revisit the 60%.




Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key



From: Christopher Wilkinson [mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu] 
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 6:39 AM
To: Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
Cc: Accountability Cross Community
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] recap and next steps?
Importance: High


Jordan, All:


May I make a few key points in this connection:


1.            I have no record or recollection of any *decision* having been
taken by CCWG. At the last conference call in which I was able to
participate, the 'carve-out' was still being discussed as an open option.


2.            The scenario whereby the GAC is excluded in certain
circumstances from exercising accountability powers is not plausible. Absent
the GAC, the remaining participants include three SOs, with an in-built

               The resulting opportunities for collusion are too great to be


               Indeed, one may regret the abstention of certain ACs, who
were essential to maintain the multi-stakeholder balance, but we are where
we are.


3.            One possible solution would be that in the event that the GAC
abstains (e.g. having exercised their advisory role), the other ACs (in
practice ALAC, absent the others), 

               would have additional voting participation to restore the
multistakeholder balance. Leaving such decisions (however exceptional) to a
super-majority of SOs should clearly be out of the question.


Regards to you all


Christopher Wilkinson (CW)




On 21 Feb 2016, at 04:25, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz
<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz> > wrote:

Hi all


I'm trying for a recap / reset in this message, not sure I succeed but
trying to help the discussion along.


Here's the background that has caused the current extension of debate, as I
understand it:


- CCWG incorporated the idea that a decisional participant with a special
role (GAC's advisory role that requires due deference by the Board, unique
among ACs) should not be a decision-maker in applying accountability powers
in relation to the consequences of that role. (In other words, GAC can
choose - either consensus advice, or the ability to decide on accountability
powers re its views - but not both).


- if GAC is excluded from decisions, there would likely be four other SOs
and ACs participating.


- CCWG developed a principle that the use of community powers should not
require unanimity for their use, so a proposal was made that the threshold
for the Board Removal power should lower to 3 in such a situation.


- the debate since has been about when that lower threshold of 3 SOs/ACs
should apply.


  - some participants think it's only if an IRP holds that the Board has
breached the mission / bylaws


  - other participants think it's broader than that and applies whenever the
cause is related to Board responses to GAC advice


- the Board has repeatedly said that it does not want the "no unanimity"
principle to apply, but is willing to accept the lower threshold where an
IRP finds against it.


-  there seems to be disagreement about what the CCWG actually decided in
this, which is driving the discussion.



So here is what I think are some basics that we have to do:


- we have to reach clarity about what precisely we have decided, and if
there were any gaps in that, they need to be specified.


- we have to decide what to do if that clarity exposes alternatives that
haven't been decided between - that may include a position that the Board
isn't happy with.


- we have to choose alternative that can drive the widest possible consensus
within the group (unlike Steve Crocker's email, I don't think that a
decision on this can be pushed to implementation)


- we have to publish the report


I'm not a spokesperson for the leadership team but I can say that I'll be
doing what I can with the co-chairs and other rapporteurs to help make sure
that the options are as clear as they can be for our meeting on Tuesday --
so that the chances of confusion are as low as possible.


I've said before that I don't mind where the group finalises on this issue.
Here's why


I do not think it's likely that the community is going to use the new
accountability powers to disagree with Board implementation of matters that
include GAC advice in the future.  There are a number of reasons why I hold
that view, two key ones being:


- the improving transparency of GAC advice and particularly the GNSO/GAC
engagement and the Board/GAC engagement

- the existence of the new accountability framework, which makes it less
likely the Board will go against strong community sentiment


If I thought this was an important issue which would have a significant
impact on our package, and that it was a life or death matter to resolve one
way or the other, I would be very offended by the way this has played out in
the past few days.  But because the stakes are so low on the substance, I am
*very* happy to fall into consensus with whatever direction the group wants
to go, and I *do not* see this as an issue where *anyone* should be adopting
non-negotiable positions.


I don't expect that everyone will agree with me that this simply isn't that
important an issue, but I really hope that as a CCWG, we can put this matter
into perspective.  The CCWG has to come to a conclusion on that, and get the
report out. 



SO -- hopefully on Tuesday we can work through the options in front of us
and come to a decision about what to do. 


If any party gets to the point on this issue that they feel like dying in
the ditch is worth it, well may I humbly suggest that you find yourself a
ditch? :-)







Jordan Carter

Chief Executive 
InternetNZ - your voice for the Open Internet

+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email:  <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz> jordan at internetnz.net.nz 
Skype: jordancarter

Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz/>  



Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160221/391cd4f7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2849 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160221/391cd4f7/image001-0001.png>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list