[CCWG-ACCT] Updated Proposal Documents Available for Review

Mark Carvell mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk
Mon Feb 22 10:53:38 UTC 2016

Dear Jordan

I agree: we may well be dedicating a lot of crucial time at the risk of
over-engineering things here. I've said at various times in the CCWG
process that it is important to recognise what community empowerment means
in terms of *facilitating the resolution* of problems and disputes at the
earliest possible stage - rather than emphasising the need to
anticipate *confrontation
*that requires decisional votes.

This is one of the reasons why I also emphasise how a formal advisory role
for governments throughout the escalation process can actively contribute
to the community's resolution of such problems.

We should also not forget that the GAC and the GNSO are transitioning to a
closer working relationship which also serves to obviate the risk of
fundamental disputes revolving around GAC advice to the Board being
escalated to "spill level" (I am referring to the current work of the
GAC-GNSO Consultation Group chaired by Jonathan Robinson and Manal
Ismail)  changes contribute to realising the vision of enhanced,
consensus-based ICANN multi-stakeholder processes that both ATRT reviews
helped to set out.

Kind regards


Mark Carvell
​United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of

Global Internet Governance Policy
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk
tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062

On 22 February 2016 at 10:18, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>

> Dear Kavouss,
> I've said a number of times I don't mind the outcome either way. Because
> of that I don't hear, or make, strong arguments in favour or against any
> option.
> Because of that, I tend to favour not changing the report if we don't have
> to.
> I honestly believe that the circumstances in which this power would be
> used and this lower threshold available are so unlikely, that it would only
> ever happen in a state of shocking conflict. And since board members are
> usually quite rational, I also believe that if the Board allowed things to
> get that bad, they would probably be thinking of resigning anyway.
> Or to put it another way - I don't think we have a problem here that needs
> fixing by changing the report.
> Jordan
> On Monday, 22 February 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Dear Jordan
>> Re your last message relating
>> to the removal if the Board in case of  no IRP, i am not still convinced
>> by yr argument .
>> Why not ,exceptionally require 4SO/AC for that case.
>> Such exception, could help to 1) satisfy Board, s concerns and 2) could
>> help other participants be more comfortable that in the absence of IRP the
>> 4 SO/AC support will prevail and thus be more comfortable to accept the
>> Carve-Out
>> Regards
>> Kavousd
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On 22 Feb 2016, at 10:41, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
>> 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...
>> Jordan
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> +64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160222/613f9203/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list