[CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Mon Feb 29 23:11:14 UTC 2016


I've written and discarded about 6 different messages in this thread.  They
didn't all say the same thing.

We've seen some procedural objections to the clarification, but virtually
none that objected to the substance.

Trying to fix the plane in midair is a dangerous maneuver.

We seem to know what we mean and how this is supposed to work (as Becky
says "it's common sense"), and we can fix the plane on the ground.

Trying to force the GAC's hand now (which was not really part of the
original post) adds further unnecessary drama (esp. since there's no way
that would happen before Marrakech).

The point is made.  *Les jeux sont faits.*

Let's make sure this gets taken care of at the earliest appropriate time,
without adding friction to the consideration of the proposal by the SO/ACs.

I'm confident this will work out as it should.  It must and it shall.

Greg



On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

> Likewise.
>
> On 2/29/2016 9:28 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
>
> Agree with Keith’s clarification of intent.  That’s what I assumed we
> meant in sending this letter.
>
> From: < <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Becky Burr
> <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>
> Date: Monday, February 29, 2016 at 3:13 PM
> To: Keith Drazek < <kdrazek at verisign.com>kdrazek at verisign.com>, Jordan
> Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> Cc: " <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
>
> Agree, in order to respect the non-unanimity principle, the thresholds
> must be revised if and when one of the 5 SO/ACs decides not to
> participate.  This is just a common sense reading of the Proposal.
>
> *J. Beckwith Burr*
> *Neustar, Inc.*/Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
> *Office:*+1.202.533.2932  *Mobile:*+1.202.352.6367 */**neustar.biz*
> <http://www.neustar.biz>
>
> From: <Drazek>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek at verisign.com>
> Date: Monday, February 29, 2016 at 3:52 PM
> To: Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>
> The intent (from my perspective) is to clarify expectations and ensure the
> CCWG and the Board are aligned on what happens to the thresholds **if**
> an SO or AC chooses non-participation and the number drops from 5 to 4.
>
>
>
> [This issue arose only because of our tangential discussions on the GAC
> carve-out threshold and the ambiguity of the word “may.”]
>
>
>
> If the Board can confirm concurrence with our long-standing expectation of
> a non-unanimity principle, then I’ll be comfortable the issue is addressed.
>
>
>
> I don’t see this requiring a reopening of our report if we can otherwise
> confirm a common understanding and ensure the bylaw drafters have
> instructions consistent with that view.
>
>
>
> Separately, the GAC can further clarify its intent during or after
> Marrakech, but at least we’ll have common understanding on the structural
> impact of that decision.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
>
> *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 *Jordan
> Carter
> *Sent:* Monday, February 29, 2016 3:04 PM
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
>
>
>
> Hi all
>
>
>
> In three versions of the proposal from this group the GAC has been a
> decisional participant. I firmly agree with what Thomas said, that is what
> our proposal says and that is how it has to remain.
>
>
>
> We haven't demanded any SO/AC has to say they are in. We have just said
> that we take them out if they insist.
>
>
>
> Anything else would be an utter travesty at this point and undermine our
> process.
>
>
>
> On the point raised by the letter that started this thread, I only
> re-state my view that IF the list of decisional participants changed, THEN
> the thresholds would have to change, BECAUSE we cannot have a situation
> where formal total unanimity is required to exercise community powers.
>
>
>
>
>
> cheers
>
> Jordan
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1 March 2016 at 07:27, 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 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
>
> *202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
>
> *202-255-6172 <202-255-6172>/cell*
>
>
>
> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>
>
>
> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>
>
>
> *From:*  <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> <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>
> 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>
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> <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>
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> <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>
> Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> *Cc:*  <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> 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>
> 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>
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> <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>
> 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>
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=HgsFAetdfYKQD5rALEvDt7i1306eVVFSrQoQgsgY_No&s=yA-Azu7cUNwL0DqR5OTMV8ajhw804PKdbGep_HL0Zi4&e=>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
> ------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG -
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=HgsFAetdfYKQD5rALEvDt7i1306eVVFSrQoQgsgY_No&s=eHPgFYGUGFrt74v-NFEod0rWN1-tDQFXLRhFpzHDeKI&e=>
> 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>
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=HgsFAetdfYKQD5rALEvDt7i1306eVVFSrQoQgsgY_No&s=yA-Azu7cUNwL0DqR5OTMV8ajhw804PKdbGep_HL0Zi4&e=>
> 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=HgsFAetdfYKQD5rALEvDt7i1306eVVFSrQoQgsgY_No&s=yA-Azu7cUNwL0DqR5OTMV8ajhw804PKdbGep_HL0Zi4&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ *
>
>
>
> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) | Skype: jordancarter
> <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>jordan at internetnz.net.nz |
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.internetnz.nz&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=HgsFAetdfYKQD5rALEvDt7i1306eVVFSrQoQgsgY_No&s=5k6BQwK9bfdClKWdn1VLg09NEBtlHQrQM16m74hJTi8&e=>
> www.internetnz.nz
>
>
>
> *A better world through a better Internet*
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> --
>
> Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
> Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
> E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
>
> CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.
>
>
> This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160229/2df5fc7a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list