[CCWG-ACCT] Poll results

Phil Corwin psc at vlaw-dc.com
Tue Feb 23 16:30:35 UTC 2016

I also support Brett’s request for Board comment and commitment – and, as Steve suggested whether it is given or not the CCWG should clearly state its assumption regarding such situations.

While we remain hung up on a “corner case” that seems so remote that we had difficulty identifying more than one hypothetical situation in which the community would be seeking removal of the Board in its entirely for implementation of GAC advice and such Board action would not be subject to an IRP, we should not take our eyes off the much more probable situation that, based on past and present performance, there will be many situations in which the GAC is unable to provide a consensus view in a timely manner on joining the empowered community in an accountability enforcement action, whatever its nature.

As the ALAC also has the option of participating or not, receiving assurance of reduced thresholds is very important if the enforcement powers are to be meaningful and capable of being exercised. Otherwise the thresholds will either require unanimity of the remaining parts of the EC, or simply be too high to be met (recognizing further that, based on pattern and practice, the ALA seems to be the community component most likely to side with the Board when it is challenged).

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 11:15 AM
To: Schaefer, Brett; el at lisse.NA; nigel at channelisles.net; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results

I support Brett’s request for an explicit commitment.  Whether that commitment is given or not, Brett’s point should be noted as an ASSUMPTION of the CCWG in our report Annex 2.

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>>
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 8:57 AM
To: "el at lisse.NA<mailto:el at lisse.NA>" <el at lisse.NA<mailto:el at lisse.NA>>, "nigel at channelisles.net<mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>" <nigel at channelisles.net<mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>>, "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results


As I mentioned in the call last night, before any final announcement is made, I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC unanimous support to exercise those powers.

I am concerned that the Board’s position on the GAC carve-out reference Board recall, could/would be equally applied to the above situation. I believe now, before a final decision is made, is the time to clarify that matter.

Thank you,


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
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 Dr Eberhard W Lisse
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:41 AM
To: nigel at channelisles.net<mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results

Without even bothering to register as Participant.


On 2016-02-23 15:36, Nigel Roberts wrote:
> I'm also puzzled as to how Board Members, and the CEO, can simply pitch
> up and pitch in, late in the game.
> On 23/02/16 13:27, Edward Morris wrote:
>> Disagree.
>> There are formal requirements for participating in the CCWG.
> There are indeed
>> It's a minimal requirement, but a necessary one
> The fact that the requirement is minimal is no excuse for dispensing
> with it extrajudicially. In fact, it's no excuse at all, since if it is
> minimal, anyone who wanted to be Participant has a very low hurdle.
> No gerrymandering, please.

Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA<mailto:el at lisse.NA> / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421 \ /
Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4533/11679 - Release Date: 02/22/16
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160223/e213f351/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list