Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Regarding what happens if fewer than five o f ICANNâs SOs and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community
The Bylaws governing such thresholds are part of the Empowered Community creation and thus Fundamental Bylaws. They will require the approval of the Empowered Community to change. Alan At 24/02/2016 12:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
That's fine Jordan, but just to be clear, such change(reduction/increase in threshold as applicable) will only occur when the community come together to agree again right? i.e the current CCWG proposal does not say if the "empowered community" becomes 4, then the thresholds automatically reduces. I hope that is not what you are communicating.
Regards On 24 Feb 2016 06:22, "Jordan Carter" <<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote: Seun, all,
If there are 4 decisional SOs/ACs instead of 5, then the thresholds all need to change.
The ones that currently have a threshold of 4 would then require unanimity.
That would be totally unacceptable. It is not consistent with our work to date or with our report. The report specifically notes that a change from 5 eligible decisional participants leads to threshold changes for this very reason.
Best Jordan
On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Seun Ojedeji <<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
I believe this makes sense and can be noted during implementation. However, IMO a reduction of participating SO/AC in the "empowered community" from 5 to 4 should not cause any need for change since none of the exercise of community powers requires more than a threshold 4 and considering that 4 still represents over 50%(4/7) of the ICANN community we should be fine. So the current threshold proposed from paragraph 25 to 47 on Annex 2 could still be maintained (ofcourse without any reduction)
However anything that goes below 4, I expect would make the model impractical and require a complete overhaul.
Regards On 24 Feb 2016 04:39, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote: Hello All,
In response to the question from Brett Schaefer:
I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC unanimous support to exercise those powers.
The Board supports the language in the report, at Page 72 of Annex 2:
âThe thresholds presented in this document were determined based on this assessment. If fewer than five of ICANNâs SOs and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants, these thresholds for consensus support may be adjusted. Thresholds would also have to be adjusted if ICANN changes to have more SOs or ACs.â
The Boardâs earlier comment on this issue from Page 5 of our 14 December 2015 Comments to the Third Draft Proposal from the CCWG is as follows:
"B. Board Comments and Supporting Rationale on Further Defining Thresholds
The thresholds as set out in the Proposal (Pages 22-23) seem well defined for the design of ICANN today. The Board would not support lowering of any of these thresholds because these community powers represent the voice of the ICANN community. A reduction of the threshold could risk that a decision does not reflect the communityâs will.
While the thresholds seem well defined for the design of ICANN today, the Board recommends further defining the thresholds for exercising community powers in the event that the number of SOs or ACs change. 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. As a result, the Board recommends (1) clarifying that the thresholds identified in the Proposal are based on the current structure; and (2) identifying the percentages that will be applied in the event that there is a change in the number of SOs or ACs in the future."
When we previously discussed this with the CCWG, we understood from Page 72 of Annex 2 that the CCWG does not want to set percentages and has agreed to revisit the thresholds if the number of participants change.
We will further discuss this issue when it becomes clear who the future participants will be, and whether fewer than five of ICANNâs SOs and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
<tel:%2B64-21-442-649>+64-21-442-649 | <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I am saying that if we write bylaws that have four decisional participants, those bylaws won't have thresholds of four to exercise any community power. That is very clearly the intent of our work to date. So if we find out - possibly through the ratification process for the proposal - that anyone declines to participate who we have assumed will (or those who have said they will not, change their minds), then we have to revisit the thresholds. We have plenty of chance to do that, because all of the bylaws changes require full community consultation and debate etc. I would not want anyone to be mistaken about the importance of getting this right. I will certainly strongly advocate that this proposal be rejected by the ccNSO if there is *any* prospect of general powers requiring unanimity. Best Jordan On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
The Bylaws governing such thresholds are part of the Empowered Community creation and thus Fundamental Bylaws. They will require the approval of the Empowered Community to change.
Alan
At 24/02/2016 12:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
That's fine Jordan, but just to be clear, such change(reduction/increase in threshold as applicable) will only occur when the community come together to agree again right? i.e the current CCWG proposal does not say if the "empowered community" becomes 4, then the thresholds automatically reduces. I hope that is not what you are communicating.
Regards On 24 Feb 2016 06:22, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> > wrote: Seun, all,
If there are 4 decisional SOs/ACs instead of 5, then the thresholds all need to change.
The ones that currently have a threshold of 4 would then require unanimity.
That would be totally unacceptable. It is not consistent with our work to date or with our report. The report specifically notes that a change from 5 eligible decisional participants leads to threshold changes for this very reason.
Best Jordan
On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','seun.ojedeji@gmail.com');> > wrote:
I believe this makes sense and can be noted during implementation. However, IMO a reduction of participating SO/AC in the "empowered community" from 5 to 4 should not cause any need for change since none of the exercise of community powers requires more than a threshold 4 and considering that 4 still represents over 50%(4/7) of the ICANN community we should be fine. So the current threshold proposed from paragraph 25 to 47 on Annex 2 could still be maintained (ofcourse without any reduction)
However anything that goes below 4, I expect would make the model impractical and require a complete overhaul.
Regards On 24 Feb 2016 04:39, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <http://??>> wrote: Hello All,
In response to the question from Brett Schaefer:
I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC unanimous support to exercise those powers.
The Board supports the language in the report, at Page 72 of Annex 2:
“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 would also have to be adjusted if ICANN changes to have more SOs or ACs.â€
The Board’s earlier comment on this issue from Page 5 of our 14 December 2015 Comments to the Third Draft Proposal from the CCWG is as follows:
"B. Board Comments and Supporting Rationale on Further Defining Thresholds
The thresholds as set out in the Proposal (Pages 22-23) seem well defined for the design of ICANN today. The Board would not support lowering of any of these thresholds because these community powers represent the voice of the ICANN community. A reduction of the threshold could risk that a decision does not reflect the community’s will.
While the thresholds seem well defined for the design of ICANN today, the Board recommends further defining the thresholds for exercising community powers in the event that the number of SOs or ACs change. 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. As a result, the Board recommends (1) clarifying that the thresholds identified in the Proposal are based on the current structure; and (2) identifying the percentages that will be applied in the event that there is a change in the number of SOs or ACs in the future."
When we previously discussed this with the CCWG, we understood from Page 72 of Annex 2 that the CCWG does not want to set percentages and has agreed to revisit the thresholds if the number of participants change.
We will further discuss this issue when it becomes clear who the future participants will be, and whether fewer than five of ICANN’s SOs and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <http://??> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
Thanks for the clarification Alan. @Jordan since we won't be writing four decisional participants into the bylaw (as per current proposal which is based on 5) then i think you don't have to worry. If in the unlikely situation one of the 5 decide not to participate any longer before writing 5 into the bylaw then i guess there will be a CCWG call to review the threshold (including entire model if necessary) to be re-ratified by the chartering organizations. What i just wanted to confirm is that there won't be automatic reduction in threshold without community consultation once the bylaw of 5 is in place and Alan has rightly responded to that. Regards On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:34 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
I am saying that if we write bylaws that have four decisional participants, those bylaws won't have thresholds of four to exercise any community power. That is very clearly the intent of our work to date.
So if we find out - possibly through the ratification process for the proposal - that anyone declines to participate who we have assumed will (or those who have said they will not, change their minds), then we have to revisit the thresholds.
We have plenty of chance to do that, because all of the bylaws changes require full community consultation and debate etc.
I would not want anyone to be mistaken about the importance of getting this right. I will certainly strongly advocate that this proposal be rejected by the ccNSO if there is *any* prospect of general powers requiring unanimity.
Best Jordan
On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
The Bylaws governing such thresholds are part of the Empowered Community creation and thus Fundamental Bylaws. They will require the approval of the Empowered Community to change.
Alan
At 24/02/2016 12:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
That's fine Jordan, but just to be clear, such change(reduction/increase in threshold as applicable) will only occur when the community come together to agree again right? i.e the current CCWG proposal does not say if the "empowered community" becomes 4, then the thresholds automatically reduces. I hope that is not what you are communicating.
Regards On 24 Feb 2016 06:22, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz > wrote: Seun, all,
If there are 4 decisional SOs/ACs instead of 5, then the thresholds all need to change.
The ones that currently have a threshold of 4 would then require unanimity.
That would be totally unacceptable. It is not consistent with our work to date or with our report. The report specifically notes that a change from 5 eligible decisional participants leads to threshold changes for this very reason.
Best Jordan
On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com > wrote:
I believe this makes sense and can be noted during implementation. However, IMO a reduction of participating SO/AC in the "empowered community" from 5 to 4 should not cause any need for change since none of the exercise of community powers requires more than a threshold 4 and considering that 4 still represents over 50%(4/7) of the ICANN community we should be fine. So the current threshold proposed from paragraph 25 to 47 on Annex 2 could still be maintained (ofcourse without any reduction)
However anything that goes below 4, I expect would make the model impractical and require a complete overhaul.
Regards On 24 Feb 2016 04:39, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <http://??>> wrote: Hello All,
In response to the question from Brett Schaefer:
I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC unanimous support to exercise those powers.
The Board supports the language in the report, at Page 72 of Annex 2:
“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 would also have to be adjusted if ICANN changes to have more SOs or ACs.â€
The Board’s earlier comment on this issue from Page 5 of our 14 December 2015 Comments to the Third Draft Proposal from the CCWG is as follows:
"B. Board Comments and Supporting Rationale on Further Defining Thresholds
The thresholds as set out in the Proposal (Pages 22-23) seem well defined for the design of ICANN today. The Board would not support lowering of any of these thresholds because these community powers represent the voice of the ICANN community. A reduction of the threshold could risk that a decision does not reflect the community’s will.
While the thresholds seem well defined for the design of ICANN today, the Board recommends further defining the thresholds for exercising community powers in the event that the number of SOs or ACs change. 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. As a result, the Board recommends (1) clarifying that the thresholds identified in the Proposal are based on the current structure; and (2) identifying the percentages that will be applied in the event that there is a change in the number of SOs or ACs in the future."
When we previously discussed this with the CCWG, we understood from Page 72 of Annex 2 that the CCWG does not want to set percentages and has agreed to revisit the thresholds if the number of participants change.
We will further discuss this issue when it becomes clear who the future participants will be, and whether fewer than five of ICANN’s SOs and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <http://??> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *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!
Dear All We are not yet even planning to write Bylaws. We have not yet receive definitive reply from chattering organisation on their participation( full, partial, case by case,,,) Then we need not to raise any such issue at this stage. I do not support any such thought. Best regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 24 Feb 2016, at 10:17, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the clarification Alan. @Jordan since we won't be writing four decisional participants into the bylaw (as per current proposal which is based on 5) then i think you don't have to worry. If in the unlikely situation one of the 5 decide not to participate any longer before writing 5 into the bylaw then i guess there will be a CCWG call to review the threshold (including entire model if necessary) to be re-ratified by the chartering organizations.
What i just wanted to confirm is that there won't be automatic reduction in threshold without community consultation once the bylaw of 5 is in place and Alan has rightly responded to that.
Regards
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:34 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote: I am saying that if we write bylaws that have four decisional participants, those bylaws won't have thresholds of four to exercise any community power. That is very clearly the intent of our work to date.
So if we find out - possibly through the ratification process for the proposal - that anyone declines to participate who we have assumed will (or those who have said they will not, change their minds), then we have to revisit the thresholds.
We have plenty of chance to do that, because all of the bylaws changes require full community consultation and debate etc.
I would not want anyone to be mistaken about the importance of getting this right. I will certainly strongly advocate that this proposal be rejected by the ccNSO if there is *any* prospect of general powers requiring unanimity.
Best Jordan
On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: The Bylaws governing such thresholds are part of the Empowered Community creation and thus Fundamental Bylaws. They will require the approval of the Empowered Community to change.
Alan
At 24/02/2016 12:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
That's fine Jordan, but just to be clear, such change(reduction/increase in threshold as applicable) will only occur when the community come together to agree again right? i.e the current CCWG proposal does not say if the "empowered community" becomes 4, then the thresholds automatically reduces. I hope that is not what you are communicating.
Regards On 24 Feb 2016 06:22, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz > wrote: Seun, all,
If there are 4 decisional SOs/ACs instead of 5, then the thresholds all need to change.
The ones that currently have a threshold of 4 would then require unanimity.
That would be totally unacceptable. It is not consistent with our work to date or with our report. The report specifically notes that a change from 5 eligible decisional participants leads to threshold changes for this very reason.
Best Jordan
On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com > wrote:
I believe this makes sense and can be noted during implementation. However, IMO a reduction of participating SO/AC in the "empowered community" from 5 to 4 should not cause any need for change since none of the exercise of community powers requires more than a threshold 4 and considering that 4 still represents over 50%(4/7) of the ICANN community we should be fine. So the current threshold proposed from paragraph 25 to 47 on Annex 2 could still be maintained (ofcourse without any reduction)
However anything that goes below 4, I expect would make the model impractical and require a complete overhaul.
Regards On 24 Feb 2016 04:39, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote: Hello All,
In response to the question from Brett Schaefer:
I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC unanimous support to exercise those powers.
The Board supports the language in the report, at Page 72 of Annex 2:
“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 would also have to be adjusted if ICANN changes to have more SOs or ACs.â€
The Board’s earlier comment on this issue from Page 5 of our 14 December 2015 Comments to the Third Draft Proposal from the CCWG is as follows:
"B. Board Comments and Supporting Rationale on Further Defining Thresholds
The thresholds as set out in the Proposal (Pages 22-23) seem well defined for the design of ICANN today. The Board would not support lowering of any of these thresholds because these community powers represent the voice of the ICANN community. A reduction of the threshold could risk that a decision does not reflect the community’s will.
While the thresholds seem well defined for the design of ICANN today, the Board recommends further defining the thresholds for exercising community powers in the event that the number of SOs or ACs change. 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. As a result, the Board recommends (1) clarifying that the thresholds identified in the Proposal are based on the current structure; and (2) identifying the percentages that will be applied in the event that there is a change in the number of SOs or ACs in the future."
When we previously discussed this with the CCWG, we understood from Page 72 of Annex 2 that the CCWG does not want to set percentages and has agreed to revisit the thresholds if the number of participants change.
We will further discuss this issue when it becomes clear who the future participants will be, and whether fewer than five of ICANN’s SOs and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
This is territory that has been covered time and again, but it should be clear to everyone that we still do not have agreement or, perhaps more accurately, the requisite commitments from all parties. Without such, we are being set up for future debates, frustrations and misunderstandings that, if past is indeed prologue, will lead to further marginalization of the accountability objectives that we initially established for this process. If a clear, solid agreement doesn't get locked into place now, it will never get locked into place, and those who have never truly bought into the notion that additional accountability is essential or desirable will continue to walk us back. It was suggested earlier that those who have expressed frustrations with this activity perhaps don't understand how international negotiations work and what's required to reach an agreement. After spending 15-plus years engaging in negotiations of various sorts globally, I understand completely. When those leading a process are perceived to place higher priority on arbitrary deadlines or achieving any semblance of an agreement for agreement's sake, the outcome will be unbalanced and the opportunity missed. It is essential that clear, concise language on how and when thresholds are to be adjusted be explicitly included in any final agreement and via corresponding amendments to ICANN's governing documents. All parties should be willing to agree to this. If not, then it would be wise to question what exactly has been achieved via this latest round of concessions. Happy Wednesday. Ken On Feb 24, 2016, at 1:36 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: I am saying that if we write bylaws that have four decisional participants, those bylaws won't have thresholds of four to exercise any community power. That is very clearly the intent of our work to date. So if we find out - possibly through the ratification process for the proposal - that anyone declines to participate who we have assumed will (or those who have said they will not, change their minds), then we have to revisit the thresholds. We have plenty of chance to do that, because all of the bylaws changes require full community consultation and debate etc. I would not want anyone to be mistaken about the importance of getting this right. I will certainly strongly advocate that this proposal be rejected by the ccNSO if there is *any* prospect of general powers requiring unanimity. Best Jordan On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: The Bylaws governing such thresholds are part of the Empowered Community creation and thus Fundamental Bylaws. They will require the approval of the Empowered Community to change. Alan At 24/02/2016 12:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: That's fine Jordan, but just to be clear, such change(reduction/increase in threshold as applicable) will only occur when the community come together to agree again right? i.e the current CCWG proposal does not say if the "empowered community" becomes 4, then the thresholds automatically reduces. I hope that is not what you are communicating. Regards On 24 Feb 2016 06:22, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> > wrote: Seun, all, If there are 4 decisional SOs/ACs instead of 5, then the thresholds all need to change. The ones that currently have a threshold of 4 would then require unanimity. That would be totally unacceptable. It is not consistent with our work to date or with our report. The report specifically notes that a change from 5 eligible decisional participants leads to threshold changes for this very reason. Best Jordan On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','seun.ojedeji@gmail.com');> > wrote: I believe this makes sense and can be noted during implementation. However, IMO a reduction of participating SO/AC in the "empowered community" from 5 to 4 should not cause any need for change since none of the exercise of community powers requires more than a threshold 4 and considering that 4 still represents over 50%(4/7) of the ICANN community we should be fine. So the current threshold proposed from paragraph 25 to 47 on Annex 2 could still be maintained (ofcourse without any reduction) However anything that goes below 4, I expect would make the model impractical and require a complete overhaul. Regards On 24 Feb 2016 04:39, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<http://??>> wrote: Hello All, In response to the question from Brett Schaefer:
I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC unanimous support to exercise those powers.
The Board supports the language in the report, at Page 72 of Annex 2: “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 would also have to be adjusted if ICANN changes to have more SOs or ACs.†The Board’s earlier comment on this issue from Page 5 of our 14 December 2015 Comments to the Third Draft Proposal from the CCWG is as follows: "B. Board Comments and Supporting Rationale on Further Defining Thresholds The thresholds as set out in the Proposal (Pages 22-23) seem well defined for the design of ICANN today. The Board would not support lowering of any of these thresholds because these community powers represent the voice of the ICANN community. A reduction of the threshold could risk that a decision does not reflect the community’s will. While the thresholds seem well defined for the design of ICANN today, the Board recommends further defining the thresholds for exercising community powers in the event that the number of SOs or ACs change. 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. As a result, the Board recommends (1) clarifying that the thresholds identified in the Proposal are based on the current structure; and (2) identifying the percentages that will be applied in the event that there is a change in the number of SOs or ACs in the future." When we previously discussed this with the CCWG, we understood from Page 72 of Annex 2 that the CCWG does not want to set percentages and has agreed to revisit the thresholds if the number of participants change. We will further discuss this issue when it becomes clear who the future participants will be, and whether fewer than five of ICANN’s SOs and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<http://??> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity _______________________________________________ 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
Well said. Completely agree. ---------------------------------------- From: "Salaets, Ken" <ksalaets@itic.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 1:09 PM To: "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Regarding what happens if fewer than five o f ICANNâ?Ts SOs and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community This is territory that has been covered time and again, but it should be clear to everyone that we still do not have agreement or, perhaps more accurately, the requisite commitments from all parties. Without such, we are being set up for future debates, frustrations and misunderstandings that, if past is indeed prologue, will lead to further marginalization of the accountability objectives that we initially established for this process. If a clear, solid agreement doesn't get locked into place now, it will never get locked into place, and those who have never truly bought into the notion that additional accountability is essential or desirable will continue to walk us back. It was suggested earlier that those who have expressed frustrations with this activity perhaps don't understand how international negotiations work and what's required to reach an agreement. After spending 15-plus years engaging in negotiations of various sorts globally, I understand completely. When those leading a process are perceived to place higher priority on arbitrary deadlines or achieving any semblance of an agreement for agreement's sake, the outcome will be unbalanced and the opportunity missed. It is essential that clear, concise language on how and when thresholds are to be adjusted be explicitly included in any final agreement and via corresponding amendments to ICANN's governing documents. All parties should be willing to agree to this. If not, then it would be wise to question what exactly has been achieved via this latest round of concessions. Happy Wednesday. Ken On Feb 24, 2016, at 1:36 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote: I am saying that if we write bylaws that have four decisional participants, those bylaws won't have thresholds of four to exercise any community power. That is very clearly the intent of our work to date. So if we find out - possibly through the ratification process for the proposal - that anyone declines to participate who we have assumed will (or those who have said they will not, change their minds), then we have to revisit the thresholds. We have plenty of chance to do that, because all of the bylaws changes require full community consultation and debate etc. I would not want anyone to be mistaken about the importance of getting this right. I will certainly strongly advocate that this proposal be rejected by the ccNSO if there is *any* prospect of general powers requiring unanimity. Best Jordan On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: The Bylaws governing such thresholds are part of the Empowered Community creation and thus Fundamental Bylaws. They will require the approval of the Empowered Community to change. Alan At 24/02/2016 12:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: That's fine Jordan, but just to be clear, such change(reduction/increase in threshold as applicable) will only occur when the community come together to agree again right? i.e the current CCWG proposal does not say if the "empowered community" becomes 4, then the thresholds automatically reduces. I hope that is not what you are communicating. Regards On 24 Feb 2016 06:22, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz > wrote: Seun, all, If there are 4 decisional SOs/ACs instead of 5, then the thresholds all need to change. The ones that currently have a threshold of 4 would then require unanimity. That would be totally unacceptable. It is not consistent with our work to date or with our report. The report specifically notes that a change from 5 eligible decisional participants leads to threshold changes for this very reason. Best Jordan On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com > wrote: I believe this makes sense and can be noted during implementation. However, IMO a reduction of participating SO/AC in the "empowered community" from 5 to 4 should not cause any need for change since none of the exercise of community powers requires more than a threshold 4 and considering that 4 still represents over 50%(4/7) of the ICANN community we should be fine. So the current threshold proposed from paragraph 25 to 47 on Annex 2 could still be maintained (ofcourse without any reduction) However anything that goes below 4, I expect would make the model impractical and require a complete overhaul. Regards On 24 Feb 2016 04:39, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote: Hello All, In response to the question from Brett Schaefer: >> I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC unanimous support to exercise those powers. The Board supports the language in the report, at Page 72 of Annex 2: â?oThe thresholds presented in this document were determined based on this assessment. If fewer than five of ICANNâ?Ts SOs and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants, these thresholds for consensus support may be adjusted. Thresholds would also have to be adjusted if ICANN changes to have more SOs or ACs.â? The Boardâ?Ts earlier comment on this issue from Page 5 of our 14 December 2015 Comments to the Third Draft Proposal from the CCWG is as follows: "B. Board Comments and Supporting Rationale on Further Defining Thresholds The thresholds as set out in the Proposal (Pages 22-23) seem well defined for the design of ICANN today. The Board would not support lowering of any of these thresholds because these community powers represent the voice of the ICANN community. A reduction of the threshold could risk that a decision does not reflect the communityâ?Ts will. While the thresholds seem well defined for the design of ICANN today, the Board recommends further defining the thresholds for exercising community powers in the event that the number of SOs or ACs change. 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. As a result, the Board recommends (1) clarifying that the thresholds identified in the Proposal are based on the current structure; and (2) identifying the percentages that will be applied in the event that there is a change in the number of SOs or ACs in the future." When we previously discussed this with the CCWG, we understood from Page 72 of Annex 2 that the CCWG does not want to set percentages and has agreed to revisit the thresholds if the number of participants change. We will further discuss this issue when it becomes clear who the future participants will be, and whether fewer than five of ICANNâ?Ts SOs and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Clearly, if I've learned nothing from this, it is that a flurry of disagreement can be reframed as full consensus without consequences. I shall remember this as a useful technique. On 24/02/16 13:11, Edward Morris wrote:
Well said. Completely agree. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From*: "Salaets, Ken" <ksalaets@itic.org> *Sent*: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 1:09 PM *To*: "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> *Cc*: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject*: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Regarding what happens if fewer than five o f ICANN’s SOs and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community This is territory that has been covered time and again, but it should be clear to everyone that we still do not have agreement or, perhaps more accurately, the requisite commitments from all parties. Without such, we are being set up for future debates, frustrations and misunderstandings that, if past is indeed prologue, will lead to further marginalization of the accountability objectives that we initially established for this process. If a clear, solid agreement doesn't get locked into place now, it will never get locked into place, and those who have never truly bought into the notion that additional accountability is essential or desirable will continue to walk us back. It was suggested earlier that those who have expressed frustrations with this activity perhaps don't understand how international negotiations work and what's required to reach an agreement. After spending 15-plus years engaging in negotiations of various sorts globally, I understand completely. When those leading a process are perceived to place higher priority on arbitrary deadlines or achieving any semblance of an agreement for agreement's sake, the outcome will be unbalanced and the opportunity missed. It is essential that clear, concise language on how and when thresholds are to be adjusted be explicitly included in any final agreement and via corresponding amendments to ICANN's governing documents. All parties should be willing to agree to this. If not, then it would be wise to question what exactly has been achieved via this latest round of concessions. Happy Wednesday. Ken
On Feb 24, 2016, at 1:36 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:
I am saying that if we write bylaws that have four decisional participants, those bylaws won't have thresholds of four to exercise any community power. That is very clearly the intent of our work to date. So if we find out - possibly through the ratification process for the proposal - that anyone declines to participate who we have assumed will (or those who have said they will not, change their minds), then we have to revisit the thresholds. We have plenty of chance to do that, because all of the bylaws changes require full community consultation and debate etc. I would not want anyone to be mistaken about the importance of getting this right. I will certainly strongly advocate that this proposal be rejected by the ccNSO if there is *any* prospect of general powers requiring unanimity. Best Jordan
On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote:
The Bylaws governing such thresholds are part of the Empowered Community creation and thus Fundamental Bylaws. They will require the approval of the Empowered Community to change.
Alan
At 24/02/2016 12:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
That's fine Jordan, but just to be clear, such change(reduction/increase in threshold as applicable) will only occur when the community come together to agree again right? i.e the current CCWG proposal does not say if the "empowered community" becomes 4, then the thresholds automatically reduces. I hope that is not what you are communicating.
Regards On 24 Feb 2016 06:22, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz > wrote:
Seun, all, If there are 4 decisional SOs/ACs instead of 5, then the thresholds all need to change. The ones that currently have a threshold of 4 would then require unanimity. That would be totally unacceptable. It is not consistent with our work to date or with our report. The report specifically notes that a change from 5 eligible decisional participants leads to threshold changes for this very reason. Best Jordan On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com > wrote:
I believe this makes sense and can be noted during implementation. However, IMO a reduction of participating SO/AC in the "empowered community" from 5 to 4 should not cause any need for change since none of the exercise of community powers requires more than a threshold 4 and considering that 4 still represents over 50%(4/7) of the ICANN community we should be fine. So the current threshold proposed from paragraph 25 to 47 on Annex 2 could still be maintained (ofcourse without any reduction) However anything that goes below 4, I expect would make the model impractical and require a complete overhaul. Regards On 24 Feb 2016 04:39, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <http://??>> wrote:
Hello All, In response to the question from Brett Schaefer: >> I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC unanimous support to exercise those powers. The Board supports the language in the report, at Page 72 of Annex 2: “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 would also have to be adjusted if ICANN changes to have more SOs or ACs.â€
The Board’s earlier comment on this issue from Page 5 of our 14 December 2015 Comments to the Third Draft Proposal from the CCWG is as follows: "B. Board Comments and Supporting Rationale on Further Defining Thresholds The thresholds as set out in the Proposal (Pages 22-23) seem well defined for the design of ICANN today. The Board would not support lowering of any of these thresholds because these community powers represent the voice of the ICANN community. A reduction of the threshold could risk that a decision does not reflect the community’s will. While the thresholds seem well defined for the design of ICANN today, the Board recommends further defining the thresholds for exercising community powers in the event that the number of SOs or ACs change. 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. As a result, the Board recommends (1) clarifying that the thresholds identified in the Proposal are based on the current structure; and (2) identifying the percentages that will be applied in the event that there is a change in the number of SOs or ACs in the future." When we previously discussed this with the CCWG, we understood from Page 72 of Annex 2 that the CCWG does not want to set percentages and has agreed to revisit the thresholds if the number of participants change. We will further discuss this issue when it becomes clear who the future participants will be, and whether fewer than five of ICANN’s SOs and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <http://??> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Yes, agree fully. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Edward Morris Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 8:11 AM To: Jordan Carter; Salaets, Ken Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Regarding what happens if fewer than five o f ICANNâ?Ts SOs and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community Well said. Completely agree. ________________________________ From: "Salaets, Ken" <ksalaets@itic.org<mailto:ksalaets@itic.org>> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 1:09 PM To: "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Regarding what happens if fewer than five o f ICANN’s SOs and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community This is territory that has been covered time and again, but it should be clear to everyone that we still do not have agreement or, perhaps more accurately, the requisite commitments from all parties. Without such, we are being set up for future debates, frustrations and misunderstandings that, if past is indeed prologue, will lead to further marginalization of the accountability objectives that we initially established for this process. If a clear, solid agreement doesn't get locked into place now, it will never get locked into place, and those who have never truly bought into the notion that additional accountability is essential or desirable will continue to walk us back. It was suggested earlier that those who have expressed frustrations with this activity perhaps don't understand how international negotiations work and what's required to reach an agreement. After spending 15-plus years engaging in negotiations of various sorts globally, I understand completely. When those leading a process are perceived to place higher priority on arbitrary deadlines or achieving any semblance of an agreement for agreement's sake, the outcome will be unbalanced and the opportunity missed. It is essential that clear, concise language on how and when thresholds are to be adjusted be explicitly included in any final agreement and via corresponding amendments to ICANN's governing documents. All parties should be willing to agree to this. If not, then it would be wise to question what exactly has been achieved via this latest round of concessions. Happy Wednesday. Ken ________________________________ 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/> On Feb 24, 2016, at 1:36 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: I am saying that if we write bylaws that have four decisional participants, those bylaws won't have thresholds of four to exercise any community power. That is very clearly the intent of our work to date. So if we find out - possibly through the ratification process for the proposal - that anyone declines to participate who we have assumed will (or those who have said they will not, change their minds), then we have to revisit the thresholds. We have plenty of chance to do that, because all of the bylaws changes require full community consultation and debate etc. I would not want anyone to be mistaken about the importance of getting this right. I will certainly strongly advocate that this proposal be rejected by the ccNSO if there is *any* prospect of general powers requiring unanimity. Best Jordan On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: The Bylaws governing such thresholds are part of the Empowered Community creation and thus Fundamental Bylaws. They will require the approval of the Empowered Community to change. Alan At 24/02/2016 12:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: That's fine Jordan, but just to be clear, such change(reduction/increase in threshold as applicable) will only occur when the community come together to agree again right? i.e the current CCWG proposal does not say if the "empowered community" becomes 4, then the thresholds automatically reduces. I hope that is not what you are communicating. Regards On 24 Feb 2016 06:22, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz%20> > wrote: Seun, all, If there are 4 decisional SOs/ACs instead of 5, then the thresholds all need to change. The ones that currently have a threshold of 4 would then require unanimity. That would be totally unacceptable. It is not consistent with our work to date or with our report. The report specifically notes that a change from 5 eligible decisional participants leads to threshold changes for this very reason. Best Jordan On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com%20> > wrote: I believe this makes sense and can be noted during implementation. However, IMO a reduction of participating SO/AC in the "empowered community" from 5 to 4 should not cause any need for change since none of the exercise of community powers requires more than a threshold 4 and considering that 4 still represents over 50%(4/7) of the ICANN community we should be fine. So the current threshold proposed from paragraph 25 to 47 on Annex 2 could still be maintained (ofcourse without any reduction) However anything that goes below 4, I expect would make the model impractical and require a complete overhaul. Regards On 24 Feb 2016 04:39, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<http://??>> wrote: Hello All, In response to the question from Brett Schaefer:
I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC unanimous support to exercise those powers.
The Board supports the language in the report, at Page 72 of Annex 2: “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 would also have to be adjusted if ICANN changes to have more SOs or ACs.†The Board’s earlier comment on this issue from Page 5 of our 14 December 2015 Comments to the Third Draft Proposal from the CCWG is as follows: "B. Board Comments and Supporting Rationale on Further Defining Thresholds The thresholds as set out in the Proposal (Pages 22-23) seem well defined for the design of ICANN today. The Board would not support lowering of any of these thresholds because these community powers represent the voice of the ICANN community. A reduction of the threshold could risk that a decision does not reflect the community’s will. While the thresholds seem well defined for the design of ICANN today, the Board recommends further defining the thresholds for exercising community powers in the event that the number of SOs or ACs change. 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. As a result, the Board recommends (1) clarifying that the thresholds identified in the Proposal are based on the current structure; and (2) identifying the percentages that will be applied in the event that there is a change in the number of SOs or ACs in the future." When we previously discussed this with the CCWG, we understood from Page 72 of Annex 2 that the CCWG does not want to set percentages and has agreed to revisit the thresholds if the number of participants change. We will further discuss this issue when it becomes clear who the future participants will be, and whether fewer than five of ICANN’s SOs and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<http://??> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity _______________________________________________ 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> -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity _______________________________________________ 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>
participants (8)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Edward Morris -
Jordan Carter -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Nigel Roberts -
Salaets, Ken -
Schaefer, Brett -
Seun Ojedeji