[CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Recommendation 2 – Escalation timeframe (first reading)

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Jan 7 05:27:33 UTC 2016

I agree that the process could be simplified. 
Merging the petition and conference call might be 
possible, but it would have to be done with care 
to ensure that there is proper time to 
"socialize" the need to exercise the power, or we 
will never get the critical mass needed. It is 
important that the other AC/SOs (those who did 
not originate the petition) have a proper 
opportunity to consider the issue and ensure that 
their community participates in the Community 
Forum. If they don't they will not likely support the final action.

On changing the numbers to percentages, I 
personally think that the numbers should be a 
conscious decision at the time the number of 
AC/SOs is increased, but the percentages would 
provide good guidelines, and I suspect I could 
live with them as defaults. They seem to work as 
the number increases from 5. They do NOT work if 
you decrease below 5 participating. I have 
attached a PDF of a spreadsheet showing the calculations.


At 06/01/2016 12:06 PM, Jordan Carter wrote:
>Hi all
>Just a couple of general comments.
>On the timeframe concern, I think we face a hard 
>juggle to keep the times reasonably tight on the 
>one hand (so things don't drag where a power 
>should be used), and making sure the powers are actually workable.
>If we have to lengthen the times for any steps I 
>think we should look for ways to not see the 
>total timeframe to use a power blow out.
>My primary proposal to achieve that is to merge 
>the petitioning and conference call steps. I 
>wasn't able to be part of the discussion about 
>the escalation process in Dublin because I was 
>detained on other small groups, but I never 
>supported adding another step to our quite clean 
>"Petition, Forum, Decision" model from the second draft.
>So if we were to go ahead in this way, an SO or 
>AC would decide to petition to use the power. If 
>that petition was successful, according to its 
>own rules, a Community Forum would be organised.
>I think we are clearer than we were at one point 
>that the Community Forum isn't a chance for 
>travelling and getting together in person: it's 
>an online Adobe meeting, which is highly unlikely ever to take one day or two.
>In other words, having both a Conference Call 
>and a Community Forum essentially duplicates the 
>same thing, with no benefit that is entirely obvious.
>Merging the two steps will help avoid a time frame blowout.
>I can't recall whether or not we had said more 
>than one SO or AC needed to petition to use a 
>power but we could use the same threshold as 
>required to hold a Forum, in merging the steps.
>On changing the #s to %s in the decision table, 
>I don't know how workable this is - it risks 
>unintentionally creating too-high thresholds or 
>too-low ones, given the low number of SOs and 
>ACs involved. I think I would prefer to stick 
>with numbers, and adjusting them should the 
>numbers of SOs or ACs change in future, but 
>don't have a strong view about that.
>Hope this helps.
>On 6 January 2016 at 15:55, Alice Jansen 
><<mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>alice.jansen at icann.org> wrote:
>Sent on behalf of CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs
>In preparation for your Recommendation 2 – 
>Escalation timefframe (first reading) discussion 
>scheduled for your call #75 - Thursday, 7 
>January 2016 (19:00 – 22:00 UTC) - please find 
>attached thee material to review.
>Please use this email thread to circulate any 
>comments you may have in advance of the call.
>Thank you
>Mathieu, Thomas, León
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org 
>Jordan Carter
>Chief Executive
>+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
>Email: <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>Skype: jordancarter
>Web: <http://www.internetnz.nz>www.internetnz.nz
>A better world through a better Internet
>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/20160107/7b3c6d11/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Percent-thresholds.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 51609 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160107/7b3c6d11/Percent-thresholds-0001.pdf>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list