Fwd: Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator
Dear all - for your reading pleasure and for the lists record. Jordan ---------- 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
... 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
---------- 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, 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<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/> ---------- 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 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (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
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
---------- 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 *
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<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 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> [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 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (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
+1 Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: wp1-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Schaefer, Brett Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 4:57 PM To: Jordan Carter Cc: Paul Rosenzweig; wp1@icann.org; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [WP1] Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator 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<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 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> [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 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
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
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
Hi Alan, I am not sure whether that was a response to my comment, just incase it is. The extreme scenario you pose is the reason why I suggested setting minimum number of SO/AC required to even consider support or against in the first place. I recognize the difference between those that don't want to participate at all (like the SSAC) compare to those who may participate but may not use the power often (like GAC). My suggestion is to address both scenario should incase SSAC change its mind in future and should incase GAC wants to use the power. So if minimum of 4 SO/AC is set as the required threshold before consensus level is observed then the fear of one AC/SO exercising power would be out of it. I think we need to agree on what minimum number of SO/AC is worthy of executing the community powers if others don't want to participate. Regards Regards On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Alan, I think there is a bit of misunderstanding. I’m 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 it does not count for the thresholds either in support or against. I’m 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 ACs 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] 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 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> [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 ________________________________ 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
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 10 Nov 2015 13:29, "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
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 ACs and SOs so that we can accurately project for the model.
SO: +1 on this, I think the Co-Chairs should formerly write the SO/AC to know if they will participate.
I also think that we need to explore thresholds for various levels of
participation for that reason.
SO: Yeah and I thought your suggestion on percentage would have worked but I just figured that it will do a good job on threshold adjustment only if there is a downward review and not a situation where SSAC decides to participate in future as that will instead reduce the required threshold. One way could be to add a clause that increase the support threshold whenever there is new AC that is not among initial 5 joins. Regards
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
From: Alan Greenberg [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> 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
participants (5)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Jordan Carter -
Phil Corwin -
Schaefer, Brett -
Seun Ojedeji