Dear All,
The hyperlink which provide some information on the use of " shall" "shallnot" and so on provided by Network Working Group  is for comments see below and dated 20 years ago.

"Network Working Group                                         S. Bradner
Request for Comments: 2119                            Harvard University
BCP: 14                                                       March 1997
Category: Best Current Practice
S. Bradner
Request for Comments: 2119"                            Harvard University
BCP: 14                                                       March 1997

My comment is that we have to look at the matter within the context of the phrase and within an example claimed to be best practice
I strongly believe that if we want to change the text we need to discuss it at our forthcoming physical meeting on 04 March
At that mmeting we have to agree the use of " should" or " would" instead of "may" AND CERTAINLY  NOT SHALL
Moreover we need to clearly mentioned the minimum number of SO/AC in order that exercising the community power has some legal validity. That minimum seems to be 4 ( simple majority) of 7 SO/AC¨
Regards
Kavouss

2016-02-29 4:48 GMT+01:00 Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>:
hi all

I think this does need to be clear, and the approach set out is what I think our proposal is meant to convey.

best,
Jordan
 

On 29 February 2016 at 14:12, Chris Disspain <chris@disspain.id.au> wrote:
Bruce and Keith + 1.



Cheers,

Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer
.au Domain Administration Ltd
auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator

Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.

On 29 Feb 2016, at 12:02 , Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:

Hi Bruce,

Thanks for your reply.

I agree fully there needs to be a minimum. Speaking personally, I think 4 SO/ACs should be the minimum level of participation, with 3 of those 4 in support/not objecting required to use the powers. 

I hope we can all confirm a common understanding so the bylaw drafters will have clear and unambiguous direction.

Regards,
Keith


On Feb 27, 2016, at 6:03 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@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@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith
Sent: Sunday, 28 February 2016 7:04 AM
To: accountability-cross-community@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@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community


_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community


_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community




--
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive 
InternetNZ 

+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) | Skype: jordancarter 
jordan@internetnz.net.nz | www.internetnz.nz 

A better world through a better Internet


_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community