- WP1 - lists.icann.org

Further comments
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 23, 2015

Nov. 23, 2015

Page 10: "If fewer than 5 of ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees agree to participate...". The GAC is unlikely to say they will participate. Can we not count those who say no? Where is the modification on what to do if fewer than 5 AC/SO participate. If there an absolute minimun that must "participate"? Articles of incorporation; They are effectively equivalent in impact to the fundamental Bylaws. Shouldn't the approval level for both the Board and community be the same? 75% of entire Board. The entire board (or "all board members") must be explicit because it is different from almost all other board votes where it is a percentage of those present. The Annes uses the term "standing directors". I always thought the terms was "sitting directors"! Page 22, 1-2 days for Community Forum to discuss Fundamental Bylaw change may be overkill. Suggest "potentially 1-2 days". Page 23, Step 5, first bullet: Page 49: The 2nd Draft Proposal stated it was incorporating the AoC into the Bylaws. This version just says it is incorporating the reviews. THIS IS A BIG DIFFERENCE. Has there been any change other than the title? The text at the bottom of page 50 implies no, and if so, the Recommendation 9 needs to be re-worded. I note that in Annex 9, the wording is correct. In particular, the ALAC identified that a commitment to Consumer Trust was in the AoC (Section 3, not only in relation to a the new gTLD review) and this was missing in the 2nd draft proposal. It is still missing. Annex 3 is still referring to the Sole Member related to the AoI on page 6. Annex 4, page 16, Step 5 diagram: Type "NOMINATIONG" Annex 4, Removal of entire Board. No details. Not yet drafted? Alan At 22/11/2015 12:53 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >I have a conflict with today's meeting, but here are a few comments. >I will have more for the meeting on Monday. > >Page 10, delineation of the Empowered Community. I think we need to >mention here why the other two ACs are not listed (their own choice >combined with the fact that they are technically appointed by the >Board). Also, do we not need to say that the SSAC and RSSAC are >members of the Empowered Community in their advisory role? > >Page 10, item 1 at the bottom. The wording in the footnote below is >more appropriate. "The entity will act as the sole designator, which >has ....". Saying it takes the form of the sole designator >obfuscated the fact that it will also act on behalf of all 5 (or >whatever) AC/SOs that weld power. > >Page 14, if it is envisioned that the Community Forum would EVER be >F2F, 15 days is not sufficient. If we keep 15 days, we need to make >sure we are nowhere referring to it as F2F. > >Page 14, step 5, bullet 1. For removal of directors, it is the sole >designator the uses its powers. For the other powers, shouldn't it >be the Empowered Community? > >Page 16 and elsewhere, Articles of Incorporation changes also need >approval of the Empowered Community (not just the Designators as >could be implied from Steve's suggestion). > >Page 25, procedures to ENSURE that the Interim Board will not be in >ploace for more than 120 days. ENSURE is too strong a word. "with a >target of ensuring" would be fine. > >Alan

2 1

Re: [WP1] First comments
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 22, 2015

Nov. 22, 2015

The reason I pushed for the use of the new term (Empowered Community) is that the "Designator" technically has legal meaning only in relation to the AC/SO/NomCom that appoint directors. The Empowered Community refers to a wider set of AC/SOs and excludes that NomCom. I was suggesting that the UA "entity" we create be the Empowered Community. This entity is empowered to exercise that non-director powers, and is also takes on the role of the Sole Designator for the purposes of director appointments and removals. Alan At 22/11/2015 02:26 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: >Two of Alan's comments imply that there is a distinction between the >"Sole Designator" and the "Empowered Community": > >Page 14, step 5, bullet 1. For removal of directors, it is the sole >designator the uses its powers. For the other powers, shouldn't it >be the Empowered Community? >Page 16 and elsewhere, Articles of Incorporation changes also need >approval of the Empowered Community (not just the Designators as >could be implied from Steve's suggestion). > > >Maybe I'm losing track here, but I thought the "Empowered Community" >was the same thing as the "Sole Designator" -- just a more >user-friendly name (or "brand"). I admit I haven't read the Third >Draft yet, so maybe I'm missing something.... Am I missing something? > >Greg > >On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >I have a conflict with today's meeting, but here are a few comments. >I will have more for the meeting on Monday. > >Page 10, delineation of the Empowered Community. I think we need to >mention here why the other two ACs are not listed (their own choice >combined with the fact that they are technically appointed by the >Board). Also, do we not need to say that the SSAC and RSSAC are >members of the Empowered Community in their advisory role? > >Page 10, item 1 at the bottom. The wording in the footnote below is >more appropriate. "The entity will act as the sole designator, which >has ....". Saying it takes the form of the sole designator >obfuscated the fact that it will also act on behalf of all 5 (or >whatever) AC/SOs that weld power. > >Page 14, if it is envisioned that the Community Forum would EVER be >F2F, 15 days is not sufficient. If we keep 15 days, we need to make >sure we are nowhere referring to it as F2F. > >Page 14, step 5, bullet 1. For removal of directors, it is the sole >designator the uses its powers. For the other powers, shouldn't it >be the Empowered Community? > >Page 16 and elsewhere, Articles of Incorporation changes also need >approval of the Empowered Community (not just the Designators as >could be implied from Steve's suggestion). > >Page 25, procedures to ENSURE that the Interim Board will not be in >ploace for more than 120 days. ENSURE is too strong a word. "with a >target of ensuring" would be fine. > >Alan > >_______________________________________________ >WP1 mailing list ><mailto:WP1@icann.org>WP1(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1 >

1 0

First comments
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 22, 2015

Nov. 22, 2015

I have a conflict with today's meeting, but here are a few comments. I will have more for the meeting on Monday. Page 10, delineation of the Empowered Community. I think we need to mention here why the other two ACs are not listed (their own choice combined with the fact that they are technically appointed by the Board). Also, do we not need to say that the SSAC and RSSAC are members of the Empowered Community in their advisory role? Page 10, item 1 at the bottom. The wording in the footnote below is more appropriate. "The entity will act as the sole designator, which has ....". Saying it takes the form of the sole designator obfuscated the fact that it will also act on behalf of all 5 (or whatever) AC/SOs that weld power. Page 14, if it is envisioned that the Community Forum would EVER be F2F, 15 days is not sufficient. If we keep 15 days, we need to make sure we are nowhere referring to it as F2F. Page 14, step 5, bullet 1. For removal of directors, it is the sole designator the uses its powers. For the other powers, shouldn't it be the Empowered Community? Page 16 and elsewhere, Articles of Incorporation changes also need approval of the Empowered Community (not just the Designators as could be implied from Steve's suggestion). Page 25, procedures to ENSURE that the Interim Board will not be in ploace for more than 120 days. ENSURE is too strong a word. "with a target of ensuring" would be fine. Alan

2 1

Comments on draft docs relevant to WP1
by Steve DelBianco Nov. 22, 2015

Nov. 22, 2015

Steve’s comments on the Main Document, and Annex 9 p.3 Community powers listed do not show the Community IRP. On p.46 the community IRP is mentioned, but nowhere do we spell out the threshold to launch a community IRP. Our Dublin decision model showed a community IRP required support of 3 AC/SOs and no more than 1 objection. p.5 – where did this line come from, and what does it mean? "Workable consensus reforms that enhance the role of the community and ICANN’s Mission should be consistent with ICANN’s interest as a corporate entity." It was in our 15-Nov summary, but was NOT in our 2nd draft report. Sometimes community interests will NOT be consistent with interests of the corporate entity. I recommend we DELETE that line. p.10 Empowered Community graphic shows GSO. Should be GNSO p.12 Escalation graphic: I think ENFORCEMENT should be on the horizontal line in upper right corner, to imply this is a step after notifying the ICANN board of the community decision. That would match better with the Enforcement step described on p. 15 p.12-13 Step 1: after 1 AC/SO approves the petition, shouldn’t we allow an extra 15 days for a second AC/SO to also approve the petition? p. 13 Step 2: I’m pretty sure we also said that the conference call would be recorded and transcribed, and published. p. 16: should we add “ and Articles of Incorporation” to the 5th bullet, “Approving any modifications to Standard or Fundamental Bylaws”. Articles already say, "9. These Articles may be amended by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the directors of the Corporation. When the Corporation has members, any such amendment must be ratified by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of the members voting on any proposed amendment.” Should we change the Articles to say “Members or Designators”? p.18: numbered item 5 says “Sole Member Model” Should be Sole Designator Model. p.20, 21, 22: should we add “ and Articles of Incorporation” to the 5th bullet, “Approving any modifications to Standard or Fundamental Bylaws”. p.23: says “none objecting”, but I thought we always require more than one objecting to block a power. My notes from Dublin show that we required more than one objection to block removal of a NomCom director. Perhaps this was changed after Dublin, but I’m not sure. p.46: (IRP) I recall Becky wanted the IRP to address action or inaction. "The standard of review shall be an objective examination as to whether the complained-of action [or inaction] exceeds the scope …" p.46: (IRP). Says "A community Independent Review Process would be completely subsidized by ICANN”. Would be clearer to say, “Legal costs for a community Independent Review Process would be paid by ICANN” p.49: says "Based on stress test analysis, CCWG-Accountability recommends incorporating the reviews specified in the Affirmation of Commitments …” More precise to say, “Based on Stress Test #14, CCWG-Accountability recommends incorporating the commitments and reviews specified …" P.55: Transparency in WS2: didn’t we commit to give the Sole Designator the same document access rights that the Sole Member would have under CA law? If so, that should be in this section. Annex 9: This annex does not include the tables where we describe the changes to AoC reviews as they are brought into the bylaws. Must be an oversight, since those tables include many, many WP1 decisions about specific review team requirements. I attached the AoC document again here.

1 0

Re: [WP1] Possible WP1 meetings Sun 22nd and Mon 23rd November
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 22, 2015

Nov. 22, 2015

Jordan, I have a Board of another organization overlapping with the Sunday meeting, but I may try to attend the start. Where is the document that was presumably submitted on Friday. The latest docs I can find (https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents) are from 02 November. Alan At 20/11/2015 05:51 PM, Jordan Carter wrote: >Hi all > >Zero feedback on these, probably understandable! > >Now you have the proposal to read... > >I'm inclined to diary both Calls so will ask staff to do that. If >interest is low we can cancel them. > > >Best >Jordan > >On Friday, 20 November 2015, Jordan Carter ><<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> wrote: >Hi WP1 members, > >As you know, we will be sent the text of the Third Draft Proposal by >the end of day UTC on Friday 20th, and the working schedule has >comments due from the CCWG and its Work Parties by end of day UTC on >Monday 23rd. > >I'd like to foreshadow two chances for WP1 members to meet and talk >about our parts of the Third Draft proposal, and am flagging likely >dates/times as follows: > >Sunday 22nd November 18-20h UTC >Monday 23rd November 07-09h UTC > >We'll confirm these in the next few hours. > >If there is no interest, we'll just have very brief calls - but we >should do these so people who do want to talk through the text have >the chance to do so. > >The purpose of such calls will be to solicit feedback and discussion >that answers this question: > >"Does the text fairly represent the CCWG's intended meaning - and if >not, what is being wrongly conveyed and what does it need to be >fixed to convey?" > >In other words - not an editing or red-lining discussion, but a test >for meaning and sensibility. > >comments of course will also be welcome on the lists and all the >input will be woven into the subsequent final draft of this Third >Draft Proposal. But I figure some voice discussion will also be of use. > >As these won't be decision-making discussions but feedback >solicitation ones, please don't feel alarmed if you aren't able to attend. > >I do apologise for the late notice. > >cheers >Jordan > >-- >Jordan Carter > >Chief Executive >InternetNZ > >+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) >Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz >Skype: jordancarter >Web: <http://www.internetnz.nz>www.internetnz.nz > >A better world through a better Internet > > > >-- >Jordan Carter >Chief Executive, InternetNZ > >+64-21-442-649 | <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz > >Sent on the run, apologies for brevity >_______________________________________________ >WP1 mailing list >WP1(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1

3 2

Possible WP1 meetings Sun 22nd and Mon 23rd November
by Jordan Carter Nov. 20, 2015

Nov. 20, 2015

Hi WP1 members, As you know, we will be sent the text of the Third Draft Proposal by the end of day UTC on Friday 20th, and the working schedule has comments due from the CCWG and its Work Parties by end of day UTC on Monday 23rd. I'd like to foreshadow two chances for WP1 members to meet and talk about our parts of the Third Draft proposal, and am flagging likely dates/times as follows: Sunday 22nd November 18-20h UTC Monday 23rd November 07-09h UTC We'll confirm these in the next few hours. *If there is no interest, we'll just have very brief calls - but we should do these so people who do want to talk through the text have the chance to do so.* The purpose of such calls will be to solicit feedback and discussion that answers this question: "Does the text fairly represent the CCWG's intended meaning - and if not, what is being wrongly conveyed and what does it need to be fixed to convey?" In other words - not an editing or red-lining discussion, but a test for meaning and sensibility. comments of course will also be welcome on the lists and all the input will be woven into the subsequent final draft of this Third Draft Proposal. But I figure some voice discussion will also be of use. As these won't be decision-making discussions but feedback solicitation ones, please don't feel alarmed if you aren't able to attend. I do apologise for the late notice. cheers Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *

1 1

Re: [WP1] [CCWG-ACCT] Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator
by Robin Gross Nov. 12, 2015

Nov. 12, 2015

Also agree with Jon on this key point, which has been raised before, but not dealt with due to more "pressing" issues. Robin On Nov 11, 2015, at 2:34 PM, James M. Bladel wrote: > Agree with Jon, “consent of the governed” is an necessary component of community decision making. > > Thanks— > > J. > > > From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jon Nevett <jon(a)donuts.email> > Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 20:51 > To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > Cc: "<wp1(a)icann.org>" <wp1(a)icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator > > Folks: > > I'd like to propose an amendment to the Community Decision-making Process. > > In the case where an issue being considered most directly relates to a specific Supporting Organization, we should require support of that SO in order to utilize a community action. For example, if the community is considering blocking a change to a standard Bylaw -- Article IX of the ICANN Bylaws (CCNSO) -- we should ensure that the CCNSO supports using a community action in order to move forward. > > In the case of blocking ICANN's budget, which includes the specific amount gTLD registration fees, the GNSO must support using that community process. > > In the case of an ASO related IRP issue, the ASO must support before the community makes a decision binding. > > We should require the specific SO at issue plus at least 50% of the other SOs and ACs participating in the decision in order for the community decision process is invoked. > > To do otherwise, we risk tyranny of the majority being used against the group most impacted by a decision. > > Of course, in the case where there is no SO that is predominantly at issue, we should go with a certain requirement of support that we already have been discussing. > > We also would need to figure out how to handle a dispute of which SO is predominant. Regardless of how we handle that issue, we should ensure that the SO most impacted by use of community powers are in support. > > Thanks. > > Jon > > >> On Nov 10, 2015, at 9:44 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >> >> No misunderstanding. I was replying to Seun who raised the case of some AC/SOs choosing not to participate in a particular issue. >> >> Alan >> >> At 10/11/2015 07:29 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote: >> >>> Alan, >>> >>> I think there is a bit of misunderstanding. Iâ€™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 iit does not count for the thresholds either in support or against. >>> >>> Iâ€™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 ACss and SOs so that we can accurately project for the model. >>> >>> I also think that we need to explore thresholds for various levels of participation for that reason. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Brett >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Brett Schaefer >>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs >>> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy >>> The Heritage Foundation >>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE >>> Washington, DC 20002 >>> 202-608-6097 >>> heritage.org >>> >>> From: Alan Greenberg [ mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 5:51 AM >>> To: Seun Ojedeji; Schaefer, Brett >>> Cc: <wp1(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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 donâ€™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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)internetnz.net.nz >>> Skype: jordancarter >>> Web: www.internetnz.nz >>> >>> A better world through a better Internet >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >>> >>> >>> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

4 3

Re: [WP1] [CCWG-ACCT] Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 11, 2015

Nov. 11, 2015

I have not fully considered this new proposal but if it were to be fully considered it would have to apply to ACs as well. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On November 10, 2015 11:51:36 PM GMT-03:00, Jon Nevett <jon(a)donuts.email> wrote: >Folks: > >I'd like to propose an amendment to the Community Decision-making >Process. > >In the case where an issue being considered most directly relates to a >specific Supporting Organization, we should require support of that SO >in order to utilize a community action. For example, if the community >is considering blocking a change to a standard Bylaw -- Article IX of >the ICANN Bylaws (CCNSO) -- we should ensure that the CCNSO supports >using a community action in order to move forward. > >In the case of blocking ICANN's budget, which includes the specific >amount gTLD registration fees, the GNSO must support using that >community process. > >In the case of an ASO related IRP issue, the ASO must support before >the community makes a decision binding. > >We should require the specific SO at issue plus at least 50% of the >other SOs and ACs participating in the decision in order for the >community decision process is invoked. > >To do otherwise, we risk tyranny of the majority being used against the >group most impacted by a decision. > >Of course, in the case where there is no SO that is predominantly at >issue, we should go with a certain requirement of support that we >already have been discussing. > >We also would need to figure out how to handle a dispute of which SO is >predominant. Regardless of how we handle that issue, we should ensure >that the SO most impacted by use of community powers are in support. > >Thanks. > >Jon > > >> On Nov 10, 2015, at 9:44 AM, Alan Greenberg ><alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >> >> No misunderstanding. I was replying to Seun who raised the case of >some AC/SOs choosing not to participate in a particular issue. >> >> Alan >> >> At 10/11/2015 07:29 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote: >> >>> Alan, >>> >>> I think there is a bit of misunderstanding. Iâm not talking about >a participating SO or AC choosing to abstain or make no decision. That >is anticipated in the model. Abstention, as far as I understand it, is >not considered either opposition or support for the purposes of >exercising the community powers in other words iit does not count for >the thresholds either in support or against. >>> >>> Iâm talking about situations like SSAC, where a AC decides not to >participate at all. Most seem to believe that RSSAC will likewise >decide not to participate. >>> >>> But the assumption is that GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, ALAC, and GAC will. >This is why everyone is assuming that we will have 5 participating >entities in the community mechanism. >>> >>> But if GAC or one of the others decides otherwise or simple cannot >reach consensus on participating for some length of time, we would only >have 4 or even fewer participating entities. In the first situation, >using those four community powers would require community unanimity. In >the second, the community would not be able to exercise those powers at >all. >>> >>> That is why I suggested getting confirmation of intent to >participate acknowledging that this would not be an endorsement of >the CCWG proposal from the ACss and SOs so that we can accurately >project for the model. >>> >>> I also think that we need to explore thresholds for various levels >of participation for that reason. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Brett >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Brett Schaefer >>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory >Affairs >>> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National >Security and Foreign Policy >>> The Heritage Foundation >>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE >>> Washington, DC 20002 >>> 202-608-6097 >>> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/> >>> >>> From: Alan Greenberg [ mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca ><mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 5:51 AM >>> To: Seun Ojedeji; Schaefer, Brett >>> Cc: <wp1(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> >wrote: >>> Jordan, >>> >>> I appreciate the explanation provided in the memo. >>> >>> However, I note that the decision matrix remains unchanged in that >it requires support from 4 SOs/ACs to exercise powers 1, 2, 5, and 7. >The operating assumption is that GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, and ALAC will >participate. I believe that they will, but it would be good to get >confirmation even with the knowledge that such a statement should not >be considered an endorsement of the CCWG proposal. >>> >>> Also, as we discussed in the previous CCWG WP1 call, there is a >possible complication if RSSAC, as expected, decides not to participate >and GAC either (1) decides not to participate, (2) decides not to >participate immediately, but announces its desire to be allowed >participate at some future date, or (3) cannot reach a consensus >position. >>> >>> In that case, unanimous support by the 4 SOs/ACs assumed above to >participate would be required in order to exercise powers 1,2, 5, and >7. I donât think that unanimous support was supposed to be required >for exercise of the community powers. >>> >>> Until we have confirmation of which SOs and ACs (other than SSAC >which has explicitly stated its intention not to participate) will be >participating in the mechanism, we need to plan out possible scenarios. >For this reason, I think we need to provide decision matrices based on >varying levels of participation. Is this being drafted? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Brett >>> >>> From: wp1-bounces(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)icann.org ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> >>> >>> >>> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

Re: [WP1] [CCWG-ACCT] Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 10, 2015

Nov. 10, 2015

No misunderstanding. I was replying to Seun who raised the case of some AC/SOs choosing not to participate in a particular issue. Alan At 10/11/2015 07:29 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote: >Alan, > >I think there is a bit of misunderstanding. >Iâm not talking about a participating SO or AC >choosing to abstain or make no decision. That is >anticipated in the model. Abstention, as far as >I understand it, is not considered either >opposition or support for the purposes of >exercising the community powers in other words >iit does not count for the thresholds either in support or against. > >Iâm talking about situations like SSAC, where >a AC decides not to participate at all. Most >seem to believe that RSSAC will likewise decide not to participate. > >But the assumption is that GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, >ALAC, and GAC will. This is why everyone is >assuming that we will have 5 participating >entities in the community mechanism. > >But if GAC or one of the others decides >otherwise or simple cannot reach consensus on >participating for some length of time, we would >only have 4 or even fewer participating >entities. In the first situation, using those >four community powers would require community >unanimity. In the second, the community would >not be able to exercise those powers at all. > >That is why I suggested getting confirmation of >intent to participate acknowledging that this >would not be an endorsement of the CCWG proposal > from the ACss and SOs so that we can accurately project for the model. > >I also think that we need to explore thresholds >for various levels of participation for that reason. > >Best, > >Brett > > > > > >---------- >Brett Schaefer >Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs >Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis >Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy >The Heritage Foundation >214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE >Washington, DC 20002 >202-608-6097 ><http://heritage.org/>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(a)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 <<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji(a)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" ><<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>Brett.Schaefer(a)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; <mailto:wp1@icann.org>wp1(a)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 ><<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> wrote: >Jordan, > >I appreciate the explanation provided in the memo. > >However, I note that the decision matrix remains >unchanged in that it requires support from 4 >SOs/ACs to exercise powers 1, 2, 5, and 7. The >operating assumption is that GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, >and ALAC will participate. I believe that they >will, but it would be good to get confirmation >even with the knowledge that such a statement >should not be considered an endorsement of the CCWG proposal. > >Also, as we discussed in the previous CCWG WP1 >call, there is a possible complication if RSSAC, >as expected, decides not to participate and GAC >either (1) decides not to participate, (2) >decides not to participate immediately, but >announces its desire to be allowed participate >at some future date, or (3) cannot reach a consensus position. > >In that case, unanimous support by the 4 SOs/ACs >assumed above to participate would be required >in order to exercise powers 1,2, 5, and 7. I >donât think that unanimous support was >supposed to be required for exercise of the community powers. > >Until we have confirmation of which SOs and ACs >(other than SSAC which has explicitly stated its >intention not to participate) will be >participating in the mechanism, we need to plan >out possible scenarios. For this reason, I think >we need to provide decision matrices based on >varying levels of participation. Is this being drafted? > >Thanks, > >Brett > >From: ><mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org>wp1-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter >Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 5:51 PM >To: Accountability Cross Community; <mailto:wp1@icann.org>wp1(a)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 ><<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)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 ><http://heritage.org/>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 ><http://heritage.org/>heritage.org >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: Gregory, Holly ><<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>holly.gregory(a)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 > ><tel:%2B64-4-495-2118>+64-4-495-2118 (office) | ><tel:%2B64-21-442-649>+64-21-442-649 (mob) >Email: <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz >Skype: jordancarter >Web: <http://www.internetnz.nz>www.internetnz.nz > >A better world through a better Internet > > > > >-- >Jordan Carter > >Chief Executive >InternetNZ > ><tel:%2B64-4-495-2118>+64-4-495-2118 (office) | ><tel:%2B64-21-442-649>+64-21-442-649 (mob) >Email: <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)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 ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > >---------- > > > >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

Re: [WP1] [CCWG-ACCT] Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 10, 2015

Nov. 10, 2015

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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)internetnz.net.nz >> Skype: jordancarter >> >> Web: www.internetnz.nz >> >> >> *A better world through a better Internet * >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> >> > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

2 1