[CCWG-ACCT] Updated Proposal Documents Available for Review

Jordan Carter jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Mon Feb 22 09:41:23 UTC 2016

Thanks Hillary for this.

All, in prep for our call on the 23rd, I thought I'd extract and post the
exact wording from Annex 2 about the carve out thresholds that seems to be
at the centre of the discussion. Here they are:

Quote from Annex 2 - para 72 and bullet:

- - -
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 read this as establishing a threshold of three SOs/ACs in support to use
the Board recall power in only two situations:

1) if IRP held that Board acted inconsistent with bylaws
2) if IRP is not available

Otherwise the threshold would remain at four SOs/ACs in support.

I cannot think of many circumstances where the IRP is not available, since
almost any action of the Board could be tested against the bylaws through
an IRP.

If an IRP finds in favour of the Board, the threshold would remain at four
SOs/ACs in support.  Yes, it breaches the principle of unanimity being
never required, but it does so after a thorough investigation by an IRP
process. (If there is no such investigation, i.e. no IRP available, then
the lower threshold applies.)

Seems fine to me.

Speak with you all in ~18hours...


On 22 February 2016 at 16:14, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett at icann.org> wrote:

> Hello all,
> As requested by the co-Chairs, staff has made available the updated Core
> Proposal, Annexes and Appendices as they were prepared after comments
> received from the 17 February posting in anticipation of a 19 February
> distribution of the proposal to the Chartering Organizations. They can be
> found on the wiki here (https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
> These documents are *not* final, however have been made available for
> preliminary review. Any discussions on the list from 19 February to now are
> not reflected.
> Thanks,
> Hillary
> --
> Hillary Jett
> Communications Coordinator
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403
> Email: hillary.jett at icann.org
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ - your voice for the Open Internet*

+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter
Web: www.internetnz.nz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160222/9721a392/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list