[CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Mon Feb 29 18:52:25 UTC 2016


Hi,

This is not an acceptable tactic, I really don't understand what the goal
of this thread is any longer as I thought this was just to clarify what
happens when/if the EC is reduced/increased from the current 5.

The ACs that are not participating in EC have categorically said so and
such did not come from GAC. All we need to be clear on is what happens if
for instance GAC (or any other SO/AC) formerly indicates it won't be
participating in the EC. I will strongly recommend that we don't draw this
process back with unnecessary threatening statements; no end is loose as
far as this topic is concerned except the part that uses the word "may"
instead of shall/will etc which I believe can be addressed during
implementation since we all seem to have the understanding that "may" is
not an appropriate word to use.

It is my hope that the Co-Chairs will remain focused on process as per the
timeline.

All from me on this thread!

Regards

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 29 Feb 2016 19:28, "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Unless the GAC can reach a consensus and decide to be “in" the EC, it
> would have to be considered “out” of the EC.  If GAC can’t decide to accept
> this new role and its responsibility, we have no place on insisting that it
> does accept this change in its role and responsibility.  We can’t leave
> loose ends like this in our report without expecting disastrous results -
> we must have certainty about what we are proposing.
>
> Robin
>
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 10:07 AM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
>
> +1. The GAC needs to decide whether they want to be in or out of the EC,
> and the decision time is now.
>
> If the GAC can’t reach a consensus on something that basic then trying to
> use the accountability measures with them in the EC will be like trying to
> drive a car with the parking brake engaged.
>
> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
> *Virtualaw LLC*
> *1155 F Street, NW*
> *Suite 1050*
> *Washington, DC 20004*
> *202-559-8597/Direct*
> *202-559-8750/Fax*
> *202-255-6172/cell*
>
> *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
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mueller,
> Milton L
> *Sent:* Monday, February 29, 2016 10:12 AM
> *To:* Martin Boyle; Kavouss Arasteh; Bruce Tonkin
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
>
> This discussion is an example of the absurdity of making participation in
> the empowered community (EC) optional. You were all warned about this
> months ago. The boundaries of the EC need to be fixed and completely
> unambiguous. You must be either in or out. There should be no “oh, today I
> think I am part of it but tomorrow I may not be.” It should not be
> determined on a case-by-case basis.
>
> My understanding is that all 3 SOs are part of the empowered community, as
> is ALAC. My understanding is that GAC has not decided whether it is in or
> out. But once it does decide, it should be in or out, full stop, for all
> cases except the narrow carve out related to GAC advice.
>
> If the individual entities who are in the EC (ACs and SOs) do not support
> a vote to spill the board, reject an IANA review decision, etc. they are
> voting against it, full stop. They are not “unable to cast a vote.” So a
> lower threshold never means that there is a chance that one SO or AC can
> make the decision. The threshold only changes based on whether GAC is in or
> out.
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Martin
> Boyle
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 28, 2016 3:09 PM
> Kavouss makes a good point:  if views are so divided in the SO/ACs that
> many are not able to cast a vote, there is an indication that something is
> wrong.
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss
> Arasteh
> *Sent:* 28 February 2016 17:32
> *To:* Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
>
> Bruce
> Accruing to some established rule ,out if seven SO/AC, the minimum would
> be simple majority ( 4) bellow that the process does have no longer any
> legal validity
> Ksvouss
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On 28 Feb 2016, at 00:02, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> Hello Keith,
>
> I assume there also needs to be some lower limit of participants that
> applies to the concept of “*preventing the need for unanimous support”.*
>
> Taking an extreme case,  what if only one SO or AC “chooses” to be part of
> the decisional process?   Every decision taken would be unanimous by
> default.
>
> How many participants of the 7 SOs and ACs makes a viable Empowered
> Community?  Should it be 2, 3, or 4.   I hope we get at least 4 out of 7
> for it  to genuinely represent a significant portion of the community.
>
> So rather than “If fewer than 5”, it could be “If at least 4”
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Drazek,
> Keith
> *Sent:* Sunday, 28 February 2016 7:04 AM
> *To:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
>
> 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 *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.”
>
> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
> ------------------------------
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4537/11693 - Release Date: 02/25/16
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> 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
> 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/20160229/9f8e4464/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list