[CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue

Tue Mar 1 18:48:34 UTC 2016

Avri,

I have been paying attention to the overall discussion, but I have paid particularly close attention to this issue. After multiple, lengthy discussions, I thought that we had agreed that it was up to the GAC to decide to be in or out.

I thought that THAT was the compromise, not that the GAC was in by default, but could choose to be out. If this had been made clear, I would have been very vocal in opposing it. The text on this issue in the final CCWG-Accountability report is ambiguous:

99. Implementation of the Empowered Community currently anticipates that all of ICANN’s SOs, the ALAC and GAC (if the GAC chooses to participate) would participate in the Empowered Community – that is, they will be listed in the Bylaws as the five Decisional Participants.

I read that as GAC participation was dependent on an affirmative GAC decision to participate. Most apparently disagree with this interpretation.

I know that most of the CCWG-Accountability is ready to move on, but I hope the implications – that the practical ability of the EC to actually exercise its powers will be much harder with a habitually indecisive GAC as a participant  – are widely understood.

Best,

Brett

________________________________
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
202-608-6097
heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 12:23 PM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue

Hi,

I thought doing it this way was one of the earlier compromises in this
extended end game.

avri

On 01-Mar-16 11:37, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
>
> Kavouss,
>
>
>
> I am mildly surprised that you, as someone who has been very
> protective of the right of the GAC to make its own decisions, is not
> upset with the determination by the CCWG to make GAC a decisional
> participant by default before it has actually made this decision for
> itself.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Brett
>
>
>
> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Kavouss Arasteh
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 01, 2016 11:28 AM
> *To:* Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> Yo are too worried about something that we still do not know how it
> happens
>
> The text approriate and clearly mention that if the No of Decision
> Making SO and AC changed the threshold should be adjusted
>
> That is more than sufficient.
>
> People need to refrain concentrating/ focussing on a particular AC nor
> envisage all possible senarios.
>
> We are not wtritting Bylaws at this stage .
>
> There is ample time and competent individuals to look at the matter
> once happened.
>
> Let us discontinue this counterproductive discussion
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
> 2016-03-01 16:32 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu
<mailto:milton at gatech.edu%0b>> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>:
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz><mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz%0b%3e%20%3cmailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz%3e>]
>
> Sorry, wrong. The assumption has been made and it is the same as the
> assumption that was made in the Third, Second and First Draft Reports.
> GAC is going to be listed in the fundamental bylaws as a decisional
> participant in the Empowered Community.
>
>
>
> Huh? See below
>
>
>
> The only way that could change would be if GAC advised it did not wish
> to do so. Same with any other group.
>
>
>
> Which they haven’t done yet. Ergo, my statement below was correct.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1 March 2016 at 13:16, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu
<mailto:milton at gatech.edu%0b>> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:
>
> Whether one agrees with Brett or not, the fact remains that GAC
> has explicitly told us that it is _/undecided/_ on whether to be a
> decisional participant or not. Therefore, until we get a positive
> decision from them, we cannot assume that they will be by default.
> Greg S. was saying essentially the same thing:
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> BrettSchaefer
> 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
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<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<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

_______________________________________________
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<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/20160301/95161021/attachment-0001.html>