[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding what happens if fewer than five o f ICANN’s SOs and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Wed Feb 24 06:14:18 UTC 2016

The Bylaws governing such thresholds are part of 
the Empowered Community creation and thus 
Fundamental Bylaws. They will require the 
approval of the Empowered Community to change.


At 24/02/2016 12:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

>That's fine Jordan, but just to be clear, such 
>change(reduction/increase in threshold as 
>applicable) will only occur when the community 
>come together to agree again right? i.e the 
>current CCWG proposal does not say if the 
>"empowered community" becomes 4, then the 
>thresholds automatically reduces. I hope that is 
>not what you are communicating.
>On 24 Feb 2016 06:22, "Jordan Carter" 
><<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
>Seun, all,
>If there are 4 decisional SOs/ACs instead of 5, 
>then the thresholds all need to change.
>The ones that currently have a threshold of 4 would then require unanimity.
>That would be totally unacceptable. It is not 
>consistent with our work to date or with our 
>report. The report specifically notes that a 
>change from 5 eligible decisional participants 
>leads to threshold changes for this very reason.
>On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Seun Ojedeji 
><<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>I believe this makes sense and can be noted 
>during implementation. However, IMO a reduction 
>of participating SO/AC in the "empowered 
>community" from 5 to 4 should not cause any need 
>for change since none of the exercise of 
>community powers requires more than a threshold 
>4 and considering that 4 still represents over 
>50%(4/7) of the ICANN community we should be 
>fine. So the current threshold proposed from 
>paragraph 25 to 47 on Annex 2 could still be 
>maintained (ofcourse without any reduction)
>However anything that goes below 4, I expect 
>would make the model impractical and require a complete overhaul.
>On 24 Feb 2016 04:39, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
>Hello All,
>In response to the question from Brett Schaefer:
> >>  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.
>The Board supports the language in the report, at Page 72 of Annex 2:
>“The thresholds presented in this document 
>were determined based on this assessment.  If 
>fewer than five of ICANN’s SOs and ACs agree 
>to be Decisional Participants, these thresholds 
>for consensus support may be 
>adjusted.  Thresholds would also have to be 
>adjusted if ICANN changes to have more SOs or ACs.”
>The Board’s earlier comment on this issue from 
>Page 5 of our 14 December 2015 Comments to the 
>Third Draft Proposal from the CCWG is as follows:
>"B. Board Comments and Supporting Rationale on Further Defining Thresholds
>The thresholds as set out in the Proposal (Pages 
>22-23) seem well defined for the design of ICANN 
>today.  The Board would not support lowering of 
>any of these thresholds because these community 
>powers represent the voice of the ICANN 
>community.  A reduction of the threshold could 
>risk that a decision does not reflect the community’s will.
>While the thresholds seem well defined for the 
>design of ICANN today, the Board recommends 
>further defining the thresholds for exercising 
>community powers in the event that the number of 
>SOs or ACs change.  Leaving this issue for 
>future consideration raises the potential for 
>renegotiation of the community 
>thresholds.   This potential for renegotiation 
>adds a level of instability and a lack of 
>predictability.   As a result, the Board 
>recommends (1) clarifying that the thresholds 
>identified in the Proposal are based on the 
>current structure; and (2) identifying the 
>percentages that will be applied in the event 
>that there is a change in the number of SOs or ACs in the future."
>When we previously discussed this with the CCWG, 
>we understood from Page 72 of Annex 2 that the 
>CCWG does not want to set percentages and has 
>agreed to revisit the thresholds if the number of participants change.
>We will further discuss this issue when it 
>becomes clear who the future participants will 
>be, and whether fewer than five of ICANN’s SOs 
>and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community.
>Bruce Tonkin
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>Jordan Carter
>Chief Executive, InternetNZ
><tel:%2B64-21-442-649>+64-21-442-649 | 
><mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160224/3f6e103d/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list