Please note that draft response to question 25 was missing in the circulated document. Pasting it here

25. CCWG Counsel and ICANN are not yet in alignment on the language to describe how a Petition in the EC process can be identified as based on GAC advice.  Initially, “solely” was added to tie the Petition Notice to the GAC Consensus Board Resolution.  For example, the ICANN Budget is an amalgamation of many different inputs.  If a particular expenditure is tangentially related to GAC advice, then the GAC should not be removed from voting on that petition. CCWG Counsel has accepted this approach for purposes of this draft, with the small addition of “or almost solely”, and with the clarification that the EC could undertake two rejection petitions at the same time, one narrowly tailored to a GAC Consensus Board Resolution, and thus subject to the GAC carve out rule, and one that does not involve a GAC Consensus Board Resolution.  It will be helpful to see if the CCWG thinks this approach captures the carve out rule, as CCWG understands it. ICANN’s concern rests with the issue that “almost solely” is not a generally understood standard against which to assess action, and does not provide guidance to the community, ICANN or future IRP panels.

CCWG Response : The relevant sections of the Supplemental Report about the GAC carve out are :

• Annex 1 - paragraph 8 and 44

• Board confirmation: When the Board takes action that is based on GAC consensus advice, the Board will need to state in its resolution that its decision was based on GAC consensus advice.
• o GAC carve-out identified in petition to use Community Power: When a Board action that is based on GAC consensus advice is challenged, the petitioning SO or AC will need to indicate in the initial petition that the matter meets the requirements for the GAC carve-out and clearly identify the applicable Board action and GAC consensus advice at issue. The decision thresholds (as revised when the GAC carve-out is invoked in accordance in Annex 2) required for the escalation and enforcement processes will need to be met for the Community Power that is being exercised.

Recognizing that different views exist within the CCWG about how a petition in the EC process can be identified as based on GAC Advice (solely based, entirely or almost entirely based, distinctively based…) and taking into account that (a) the Board decides whether to label a decision as based on GAC consenses advice; (b) the complaining party decides how to frame their complaint to meet the standard in the Bylaws and (c) any improper characterization could be subjected to an IRP, the CCWG recommends NOT to add any additional details on that process in the Bylaws.

De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Bernard Turcotte
Envoyé : jeudi 7 avril 2016 00:35
À : Accountability Cross Community
Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Proposed Responses to questions on Draft Bylaws

All,

Please note that the document includes more than just the questions provided by the legal counsel. Be certain to go to the bottom of the document to see the additional questions that were included after the questions from legal counsel.

Thank You.

Bernard Turcotte

ICANN Staff Support

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> wrote:

All,

Co-chairs and rapporteurs have reviewed and proposed answers to all questions some based on the results of the Tuesday April 5th meeting of the CCWG-Accountability.

These are attached in preparation for the Thursday April 7th meeting of the CCWG-Accountability on this topic.

The CCWG-Accountability Co-chairs Mathieu, Thomas and Leon