[CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue

[James Gannon]

If we leave issues like this to the F2F then we will likely hit timeline issues once again..

This should not be a controversial request but rather a reflection of a core working principle that we have had since the early days of our work.

-James

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
Date: Sunday 28 February 2016 at 3:14 p.m.
To: Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>>
Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue

Dear Ch-Chairs,


I understand that people start to bargaining what the results of poll in brining another issue

Quote

“Therefore, we respectfully request that the current text in Annex 1 and Annex 2 be edited to replace “may” with “shall” and add an additional explanatory clause:

 “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 shall be adjusted to prevent the need for unanimous support among the decisional Participants to exercise any of the seven Community powers. Thresholds may also have to be adjusted if ICANN changes to have more SOs or ACs.”

Unquote

First of all, while there may be a need to review the above text but we should  be clear not to mixed up a general issue ( likelihood  of fewer than x number of SO/(AC participating in decision making ) by the specific carve-out concept  in regard with Board Recall as specified in in paragraph 72 of  Recommendation 2 which was settled. Consequently, whatever adjustment we make for Annexes 1 and 2 ,that should specifically expect Paragraph 72

Secondly, the structure proposed

Quote

“If fewer than five of ICANN’s SOs and ACs agree to be decisional Participants, these thresholds for consensus support shallbe adjusted to prevent the need for unanimous support among the decisional Participants to exercise any of the seven Community powers.”

Does not seems to be consistent the “conditional structure *Rule

i.e use of the conditional part in present tense must be followed by future tense in the response( following  part ) of the conditional clause.

Example

If you come late I will not wait for you

It is never said

If you come late I shall not wait for you

This is an important basic and fundamental issue to be respected.

Thirdly, There seems to be another  action we did in rush  when the added text to Annexes 1& 2 was ahgreed. Please note comments from Bruce.

While we need to carefuzll study what to do , we may not be able to fix it in a virtual call.

Perhaps that should be put on the agenda of physical meeting with a full review of any possible scenario out of that.

Regards

Kavouss

2016-02-28 9:31 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse at gmail.com<mailto:epilisse at gmail.com>>:
Dear Co-Chairs,

Can we please do the call to discuss the unfinalizing of the refinalized Final Proposal on Monday, please? On Tuesday I am busy and this is something I don't want to miss.

el

--
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4

On 27 Feb 2016, at 22:03, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>> wrote:

Hi Thomas, Mathieu and Leon. I’m submitting the following on behalf of the undersigned members/participants from the GNSO:

---------------------------------------------
Dear CCWG-Accountability Chairs,

We are very concerned with the response of the Board to the request for clarification regarding the need to adjust the thresholds for the Empowered Community to exercise its powers if the number of decisional participants is less than 5 SOACs. Currently the text in Annex 1 and 2 regarding this possibility is ambiguous:

“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 may also have to be adjusted if ICANN changes to have more SOs or ACs.”

In our view, there is no question that the thresholds must be adjusted if there are fewer than five decisional participants. We have acknowledged repeatedly and operated under the assumption that there should not be a requirement of unanimous support for the Empowered Community to exercise its powers. Yet, if there are less than five decisional participants, unless the thresholds are adjusted it would require unanimous support for the Empowered Community to:


·         Reject a proposed Operating Plan/Strategic Plan/Budget;

·         Recall the entire Board of Directors; and

·         Reject an ICANN Board decision relating to reviews of IANA functions, including the triggering of any PTI separation process.

These powers are central to ensuring that ICANN remains accountable to the Empowered Community. This matter is too critical to the primary purpose of the CCWG-Accountability proposal to remain unclear. As the Board has noted in its own formal comments, “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.”

Although it has a superficial resemblance to the recent debate over thresholds in the GAC carve-out, we believe it is fundamentally different. There is a great distinction between an SO or AC choosing to not participate, and an SO or AC being blocked from participation in a specific instance, as was the case in the case of the GAC carve-out. We were willing to accept a unanimous threshold for Board recall in the unique circumstances of the GAC carve-out, where the GAC was blocked from participation, but we believe firmly that if any SO or AC elects, whether through a conscious decision or an inability to decide, to not participate, then the non-unanimity principle must be upheld.

However, as we saw with the debate over the thresholds in the GAC carve-out, this could be a contentious issue. It is far better to resolve this matter now (and during the drafting of bylaws), prior to the official transfer of the proposal to NTIA, than to delay it when it could have significant negative ramifications on the transition through a failure to resolve it during the implementation phase.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the current text in Annex 1 and Annex 2 be edited to replace “may” with “shall” and add an additional explanatory clause:

“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 shallbe adjusted to prevent the need for unanimous support among the decisional Participants to exercise any of the seven Community powers. Thresholds may also have to be adjusted if ICANN changes to have more SOs or ACs.”

Signed,

Phil Corwin
Steve DelBianco
Keith Drazek
James Gannon
Robin Gross
Ed Morris
Brett Schaefer
Greg Shatan
Matthew Shears



_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160228/12415e42/attachment-0001.html>