Nov. 11, 2015
11:07 a.m.
I have not fully considered this new proposal but if it were to be fully considered it would have to apply to ACs as well. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On November 10, 2015 11:51:36 PM GMT-03:00, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email> wrote: >Folks: > >I'd like to propose an amendment to the Community Decision-making >Process. > >In the case where an issue being considered most directly relates to a >specific Supporting Organization, we should require support of that SO >in order to utilize a community action. For example, if the community >is considering blocking a change to a standard Bylaw -- Article IX of >the ICANN Bylaws (CCNSO) -- we should ensure that the CCNSO supports >using a community action in order to move forward. > >In the case of blocking ICANN's budget, which includes the specific >amount gTLD registration fees, the GNSO must support using that >community process. > >In the case of an ASO related IRP issue, the ASO must support before >the community makes a decision binding. > >We should require the specific SO at issue plus at least 50% of the >other SOs and ACs participating in the decision in order for the >community decision process is invoked. > >To do otherwise, we risk tyranny of the majority being used against the >group most impacted by a decision. > >Of course, in the case where there is no SO that is predominantly at >issue, we should go with a certain requirement of support that we >already have been discussing. > >We also would need to figure out how to handle a dispute of which SO is >predominant. Regardless of how we handle that issue, we should ensure >that the SO most impacted by use of community powers are in support. > >Thanks. > >Jon > > >> On Nov 10, 2015, at 9:44 AM, Alan Greenberg ><alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: >> >> No misunderstanding. I was replying to Seun who raised the case of >some AC/SOs choosing not to participate in a particular issue. >> >> Alan >> >> At 10/11/2015 07:29 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote: >> >>> Alan, >>> >>> I think there is a bit of misunderstanding. Iâm not talking about >a participating SO or AC choosing to abstain or make no decision. That >is anticipated in the model. Abstention, as far as I understand it, is >not considered either opposition or support for the purposes of >exercising the community powers in other words iit does not count for >the thresholds either in support or against. >>> >>> Iâm talking about situations like SSAC, where a AC decides not to >participate at all. Most seem to believe that RSSAC will likewise >decide not to participate. >>> >>> But the assumption is that GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, ALAC, and GAC will. >This is why everyone is assuming that we will have 5 participating >entities in the community mechanism. >>> >>> But if GAC or one of the others decides otherwise or simple cannot >reach consensus on participating for some length of time, we would only >have 4 or even fewer participating entities. In the first situation, >using those four community powers would require community unanimity. In >the second, the community would not be able to exercise those powers at >all. >>> >>> That is why I suggested getting confirmation of intent to >participate acknowledging that this would not be an endorsement of >the CCWG proposal from the ACss and SOs so that we can accurately >project for the model. >>> >>> I also think that we need to explore thresholds for various levels >of participation for that reason. >>> >>> 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: Alan Greenberg [ mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca ><mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 5:51 AM >>> To: Seun Ojedeji; Schaefer, Brett >>> Cc: <wp1@icann.org>; Accountability Cross Community >>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Updated Memo on Request on Sole >Designator >>> >>> 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 <mailto: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 ><mailto: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 ><mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>] >>> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 4:46 PM >>> To: Schaefer, Brett >>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community; wp1@icann.org ><mailto: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 <mailto: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 donât 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> [ >mailto: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 ><mailto: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 ><mailto: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 <http://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 <http://heritage.org/> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com ><mailto: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 <tel:%2B64-4-495-2118> (office) | +64-21-442-649 ><tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob) >>> Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> >>> Skype: jordancarter >>> Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz/> >>> >>> A better world through a better Internet >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jordan Carter >>> >>> Chief Executive >>> InternetNZ >>> >>> +64-4-495-2118 <tel:%2B64-4-495-2118> (office) | +64-21-442-649 ><tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob) >>> Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> >>> Skype: jordancarter >>> Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz/> >>> >>> A better world through a better Internet >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@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@icann.org ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@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@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community