[CCWG-ACCT] Updated Proposal Documents Available for Review

Mon Feb 22 23:32:22 UTC 2016

On D, to accurately reflect the current text, I believe the word "solely"
should be removed.

Agree with Brett, E should be THREE, not FOUR.  There's also an extra "the"
before "Board" each time.

Also agree that the issue framed by the Board is THREE vs. FOUR in C and E.

Greg

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Schaefer, Brett <
Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org> wrote:

> Agree, though point E should be 3, not 4, if it is to reflect the status
> quo.
>
> The Board is proposing changing 3 to 4 in points C and E, I believe.
>
>
> ________________________________
> Brett Schaefer
> 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
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>
>
> __________
>
> On Feb 22, 2016, at 6:01 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:
> milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:
>
> Very good summary, as far as I am concerned.
>
> 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 Chartier,
> Mike S
> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 5:15 PM
> To: Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>;
> Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto:
> Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>>; CCWG-Accountability <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
> Cc: ACCT-STAFF <acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Updated Proposal Documents Available for Review
>
> The relevant language in the draft of the 19th seems awkward at best. It
> may also be useful to have a table of simple sentences something like
> below, to clearly capture what people are in support of (or not).
>
>
> A.    The GAC MAY NOT participate as a decision-maker in community
> deliberations involving a challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC
> consensus advice.
>
> B.    If an IRP has found that in implementing GAC advice the Board acted
> inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws the threshold is set at THREE in
> support and no more than one objects to recall the entire the Board.
>
> C.   If an IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question
> the threshold is set at THREE in support and no more than one objects to
> recall the entire the Board.
>
> D.   If an IRP has found that in implementing GAC advice the Board HAS NOT
> acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, 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.
>
> E.    If an IRP has found that in implementing GAC advice the Board HAS
> NOT acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, the Empowered Community MAY
> exercise its power to recall the entire the Board based on other grounds
> and the threshold is set at FOUR in support and no more than one objects.
>
> 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: Monday, February 22, 2016 4:18 PM
> To: Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto:
> Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>>
> Cc: ACCT-STAFF <acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>;
> CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Updated Proposal Documents Available for Review
>
> Brett,
> we will have the text available and let me also remind you of my response
> to Larry.
>
> I said you do not have to join the Board to not be trusted. Becoming a
> CCWG co-chair is sufficient for that.
>
> Thought I should share this with you. Let's all try to keep smiling in
> these challenging days.
>
> Thomas
> ---
> rickert.net<http://rickert.net>
>
>
> Am 22.02.2016 um 22:09 schrieb Schaefer, Brett <
> Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>>:
> If I could make a small request to the Chairs, I think it would be helpful
> to have the relevant text under discussion in the center Adobe window
> tonight so that everyone does not need to page through PDF is a separate
> window.
>
> 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 Jordan
> Carter
> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 4:41 AM
> To: Hillary Jett
> Cc: ACCT-STAFF; CCWG-Accountability
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Updated Proposal Documents Available for Review
>
> 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<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<
> 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<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20674-3403>
> Email: hillary.jett at icann.org<mailto:hillary.jett at icann.org>
>
> ________________________________
> Brett Schaefer
> 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
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<
> 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<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>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b1f3eca6/attachment-0001.html>