Nov. 10, 2015
10:51 a.m.
There is a huge difference between an AC/SO that has explicitly said it will not participate at all and one that decides to not state a position on exercising a power in a particular instance. The latter IS participating by neither supporting nor opposing the action. Without sufficient ACTIVE support, the action dies. In the extreme, option 2 will allow one AC/SO to exercise a power on its own, since 1 is greater than 75% of 1. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On November 10, 2015 1:54:23 AM GMT-03:00, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: >Hi, > >I think lowering the threshold may still bring us to a deadlock since >we >are not always certain whether all will participate at any point in >time. >Allowing splitting votes is out of discussion as we have agreed to go >by >consensus. > >Option 2 IMO seem to be a good thing to explore further and in order to >ensure that is not abused, an overall minimum total number of >participating >SO/AC should be set. So if that minimum is not achieved then there is >no >need to check those in support or against. I think a minimum number of >4 >may be in order. >That will ensure that percentage is not used on say 3 participating >SO/AC >or less. > >Regards >Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos. >On 9 Nov 2015 22:57, "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> >wrote: > >> Jordan, >> >> >> >> If the model that we are discussing is unworkable under a fairly >realistic >> eventuality that seems to be a critical problem. >> >> >> >> In my opinion, it requires consideration of: (1) lowering the >thresholds >> to three if there are only four participating entities; (2) shifting >> minimum thresholds from 4 entities in support to, instead, at least >75 >> percent of the participating entities in support; or (3) allowing the >> splitting of votes to surmount existing thresholds. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Brett >> >> >> >> *From:* Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] >> *Sent:* Monday, November 09, 2015 4:46 PM >> *To:* Schaefer, Brett >> *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community; wp1@icann.org >> *Subject:* Re: [WP1] Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator >> >> >> >> hi Brett, >> >> >> >> Such matrices of decision are not being drafted. If you are able to >attend >> the call in around ~15 hours, I think it would be useful to talk this >> through. As I've said before, if we are down to four SO/ACs >participating, >> to my mind that's too small an orbit to use the current model. >> >> >> >> Jordan >> >> >> >> On 10 November 2015 at 08:34, Schaefer, Brett ><Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> >> wrote: >> >> Jordan, >> >> >> >> I appreciate the explanation provided in the memo. >> >> >> >> However, I note that the decision matrix remains unchanged in that it >> requires support from 4 SOs/ACs to exercise powers 1, 2, 5, and 7. >The >> operating assumption is that GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, and ALAC will >participate. I >> believe that they will, but it would be good to get confirmation even >with >> the knowledge that such a statement should not be considered an >endorsement >> of the CCWG proposal. >> >> >> >> Also, as we discussed in the previous CCWG WP1 call, there is a >possible >> complication if RSSAC, as expected, decides not to participate and >GAC >> either (1) decides not to participate, (2) decides not to participate >> immediately, but announces its desire to be allowed participate at >some >> future date, or (3) cannot reach a consensus position. >> >> >> >> In that case, unanimous support by the 4 SOs/ACs assumed above to >> participate would be required in order to exercise powers 1,2, 5, and >7. I >> don’t think that unanimous support was supposed to be required for >exercise >> of the community powers. >> >> >> >> Until we have confirmation of which SOs and ACs (other than SSAC >which has >> explicitly stated its intention not to participate) will be >participating >> in the mechanism, we need to plan out possible scenarios. For this >reason, >> I think we need to provide decision matrices based on varying levels >of >> participation. Is this being drafted? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Brett >> >> >> >> *From:* wp1-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org] *On >Behalf >> Of *Jordan Carter >> *Sent:* Sunday, November 08, 2015 5:51 PM >> *To:* Accountability Cross Community; wp1@icann.org >> *Subject:* Re: [WP1] Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator >> >> >> >> ... and in PDF >> >> J >> >> >> >> On 9 November 2015 at 11:50, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> >> wrote: >> >> Dear all - for your reading pleasure and for the lists record. >> >> >> >> Jordan >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *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 >> >> ------------------------------ >> 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 >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: *Gregory, Holly* <holly.gregory@sidley.com> >> Date: 7 November 2015 at 13:48 >> Subject: Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator >> >> Dear Co-Chairs, Jordan and Staff, >> >> >> >> Attached please find a substantially reorganized and revised memo on >how >> the Sole Designator would be made operational, to replace the memo >that >> was sent to you last week. The changes are largely in the nature of >> clarifications and we have addressed the point requested below as >well. We >> request that this memo be posted to replace the prior memo. >> >> >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions. >> >> Kind regards, >> Holly and Rosemary >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jordan Carter >> >> Chief Executive >> *InternetNZ* >> >> >> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) >> Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz >> Skype: jordancarter >> >> Web: www.internetnz.nz >> >> >> *A better world through a better Internet * >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jordan Carter >> >> Chief Executive >> *InternetNZ* >> >> >> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) >> Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz >> Skype: jordancarter >> >> Web: 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 >> >> > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community