Re: [CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Recommendation 2 Escalation timeframe (first reading)
I agree that the process could be simplified. Merging the petition and conference call might be possible, but it would have to be done with care to ensure that there is proper time to "socialize" the need to exercise the power, or we will never get the critical mass needed. It is important that the other AC/SOs (those who did not originate the petition) have a proper opportunity to consider the issue and ensure that their community participates in the Community Forum. If they don't they will not likely support the final action. On changing the numbers to percentages, I personally think that the numbers should be a conscious decision at the time the number of AC/SOs is increased, but the percentages would provide good guidelines, and I suspect I could live with them as defaults. They seem to work as the number increases from 5. They do NOT work if you decrease below 5 participating. I have attached a PDF of a spreadsheet showing the calculations. Alan At 06/01/2016 12:06 PM, Jordan Carter wrote:
Hi all
Just a couple of general comments.
On the timeframe concern, I think we face a hard juggle to keep the times reasonably tight on the one hand (so things don't drag where a power should be used), and making sure the powers are actually workable.
If we have to lengthen the times for any steps I think we should look for ways to not see the total timeframe to use a power blow out.
My primary proposal to achieve that is to merge the petitioning and conference call steps. I wasn't able to be part of the discussion about the escalation process in Dublin because I was detained on other small groups, but I never supported adding another step to our quite clean "Petition, Forum, Decision" model from the second draft.
So if we were to go ahead in this way, an SO or AC would decide to petition to use the power. If that petition was successful, according to its own rules, a Community Forum would be organised.
I think we are clearer than we were at one point that the Community Forum isn't a chance for travelling and getting together in person: it's an online Adobe meeting, which is highly unlikely ever to take one day or two.
In other words, having both a Conference Call and a Community Forum essentially duplicates the same thing, with no benefit that is entirely obvious.
Merging the two steps will help avoid a time frame blowout.
I can't recall whether or not we had said more than one SO or AC needed to petition to use a power but we could use the same threshold as required to hold a Forum, in merging the steps.
On changing the #s to %s in the decision table, I don't know how workable this is - it risks unintentionally creating too-high thresholds or too-low ones, given the low number of SOs and ACs involved. I think I would prefer to stick with numbers, and adjusting them should the numbers of SOs or ACs change in future, but don't have a strong view about that.
Hope this helps.
cheers Jordan
On 6 January 2016 at 15:55, Alice Jansen <<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen@icann.org> wrote: Sent on behalf of CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs In preparation for your Recommendation 2 Escalation timefframe (first reading) discussion scheduled for your call #75 - Thursday, 7 January 2016 (19:00 22:00 UTC) - please find attached thee material to review. Please use this email thread to circulate any comments you may have in advance of the call. Thank you Mathieu, Thomas, León _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: <http://www.internetnz.nz>www.internetnz.nz
A better world through a better Internet
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
@ Alan +1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Directeur Exécutif Fédération Méditerranéenne des associations d'Internet (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 7 janv. 2016 à 06:27, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :
I agree that the process could be simplified. Merging the petition and conference call might be possible, but it would have to be done with care to ensure that there is proper time to "socialize" the need to exercise the power, or we will never get the critical mass needed. It is important that the other AC/SOs (those who did not originate the petition) have a proper opportunity to consider the issue and ensure that their community participates in the Community Forum. If they don't they will not likely support the final action.
On changing the numbers to percentages, I personally think that the numbers should be a conscious decision at the time the number of AC/SOs is increased, but the percentages would provide good guidelines, and I suspect I could live with them as defaults. They seem to work as the number increases from 5. They do NOT work if you decrease below 5 participating. I have attached a PDF of a spreadsheet showing the calculations.
Alan
At 06/01/2016 12:06 PM, Jordan Carter wrote:
Hi all
Just a couple of general comments.
On the timeframe concern, I think we face a hard juggle to keep the times reasonably tight on the one hand (so things don't drag where a power should be used), and making sure the powers are actually workable.
If we have to lengthen the times for any steps I think we should look for ways to not see the total timeframe to use a power blow out.
My primary proposal to achieve that is to merge the petitioning and conference call steps. I wasn't able to be part of the discussion about the escalation process in Dublin because I was detained on other small groups, but I never supported adding another step to our quite clean "Petition, Forum, Decision" model from the second draft.
So if we were to go ahead in this way, an SO or AC would decide to petition to use the power. If that petition was successful, according to its own rules, a Community Forum would be organised.
I think we are clearer than we were at one point that the Community Forum isn't a chance for travelling and getting together in person: it's an online Adobe meeting, which is highly unlikely ever to take one day or two.
In other words, having both a Conference Call and a Community Forum essentially duplicates the same thing, with no benefit that is entirely obvious.
Merging the two steps will help avoid a time frame blowout.
I can't recall whether or not we had said more than one SO or AC needed to petition to use a power but we could use the same threshold as required to hold a Forum, in merging the steps.
On changing the #s to %s in the decision table, I don't know how workable this is - it risks unintentionally creating too-high thresholds or too-low ones, given the low number of SOs and ACs involved. I think I would prefer to stick with numbers, and adjusting them should the numbers of SOs or ACs change in future, but don't have a strong view about that.
Hope this helps.
cheers Jordan
On 6 January 2016 at 15:55, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org <mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org> > wrote: Sent on behalf of CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs In preparation for your Recommendation 2 Escalation timefframe (first reading) discussion scheduled for your call #75 - Thursday, 7 January 2016 (19:00 22:00 UTC) - please find attached thee material to review. Please use this email thread to circulate any comments you may have in advance of the call. Thank you Mathieu, Thomas, León _______________________________________________ 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
+64-4-495-2118 (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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community><Percent-thresholds.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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 (2)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Tijani BEN JEMAA