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

Schaefer, Brett Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org
Wed Feb 24 11:51:32 UTC 2016

Yes, agreed.

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

On Feb 24, 2016, at 12:25 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto: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 <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto: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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org');>

Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | 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>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list