[CCWG-ACCT] Updated Proposal Documents Available for Review

Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
Mon Feb 22 20:36:43 UTC 2016

Dear Mark and Jordan


If you would have asked me 72 hours ago I would have said that this was a discussion about a rare edge case.  Two things make me think otherwise now


First, is the fact that the Board has seen fit to make this a disruptive issue in the midst of what (as Ed Morris says) was intended as a 48 hour review period for typos and the like.  If the Board thinks it is important enough to address substantively then perhaps it is – though I still don’t see why.


Second, and more importantly, this is really a procedural test of the community.  If it cannot take, defend, and enforce a decision (whether an edge case or more significant) against the Board’s abuse of the process then it leaves me with little confidence that =any = of the accountability measures we have identified are going to be effective.  It takes fortitude to call a hierarchy to account.  If we don’t have it now, we are unlikely ever to have it.




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

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key



From: Mark Carvell [mailto:mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk] 
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 5:54 AM
To: Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
Cc: ACCT-STAFF <acct-staff at icann.org>; CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Updated Proposal Documents Available for Review


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 ICANN ​


Global Internet Governance Policy

Department for Culture, Media and Sport

mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk <mailto: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 <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz> > wrote:

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.



On Monday, 22 February 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto: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


Sent from my iPhone

On 22 Feb 2016, at 10:41, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto: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...






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






Hillary Jett

Communications Coordinator

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)


Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20674-3403> 

Email: hillary.jett at icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org> 

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



Jordan Carter

Chief Executive 
InternetNZ - your voice for the Open Internet

+64-4-495-2118 <tel:%2B64-4-495-2118>  (office) | +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649>  (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto: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> 

Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649>  | jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz> 

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

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/20160222/443b1e4f/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/20160222/443b1e4f/image001-0001.png>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list