[ALAC] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Stress Test 18: bylaw amendment suggestion
Timothy Denton
tim at tmdenton.com
Tue Nov 10 20:54:28 UTC 2015
I agree with Alan's position in this, for the reasons he stated.
TMD
On 11/10/2015 3:45 PM, Kan Kaili wrote:
> Hi, Alan,
> Thank you very much for your prompt reply.
> I completely agree with your analysis, especially regarding the
> side-effects that my suggestion may create. Thus, although its
> intention was to make an improvement in extreme cases which may rarely
> happen, but now I would like to withdraw this suggestion, and
> agree that your position as the one of ALAC on this issue.
> Also, thank you very much for answering my question on the calculation
> of votes.
> Best regards,
> Kaili
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Alan Greenberg <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> *To:* Kan Kaili <mailto:kankaili at gmail.com> ; alac
> <mailto:alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 10, 2015 10:42 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [ALAC] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Stress Test 18: bylaw
> amendment suggestion
>
> Thanks Kaili,
>
> I would suggest that details at that level do not belong in the
> Bylaws. If the ALAC chooses to follow this path, it is part of our
> own processes. However, I would caution that this is a decision
> that should be made on a case by case basis. The ALAC gives formal
> advice to the Board relatively infrequesntly. In most cases, such
> decisions are unanimous. If it was not, it would likely be a very
> small minority that would oppose (again, using past history). The
> ALAC would need to carefully decide if it wanted to offset its
> "advice" with an opposing view. I'm not saying it is not
> appropriate, just that if we do it, it should be a conscious decision.
>
> On 2/3, in most cases, a vote requiring 2/3 (referred to as a
> supermajority) is 2/3 of those directors present at the time (and
> subject to a quorum being there). In some cases, such as approval
> of Bylaw changes, what is required is the affirmative 2/3 vote of
> all directors.
>
> Alan
>
>
> At 10/11/2015 03:22 AM, Kan Kaili wrote:
>> Hi, Alan,
>>
>> Thank you for collecting comments from our ALAC members.
>>
>> Regarding the statement "The need that each and every Advisory
>> Committee should preserve its own autonomy in its definition of
>> consensus" and "*/_each Advisory Committee has the right to
>> determine its particular definition of consensus_/*", considering:
>>
>> -- the final decision's responsibility and power rests at the Board;
>>
>> -- ACs are to provide "advices" instead of instructions nor
>> guidance to the Board;
>>
>> -- under various definitions of "consensus", the ACs's advices
>> may not be unanimous, implying there may be opinions against such
>> advices which may provide value and may represent opionions of
>> substantial stakeholders, as well as may provide insight to the
>> Board in the future;
>>
>> -- in order to provide richer advices to the Board for
>> consideration and decision making,
>>
>> I suggest to make the follwing modification:
>>
>> "... each Advisory Committee has the right to determine its
>> particular definition of consensus. *In the case an advice is not
>> made unanimously by the Advisory Committee, opinions against the
>> advice have the right to state such opinions attached to the
>> advice.*"
>>
>> Another comment is more of a question and more technical, which
>> maybe because I am new:
>>
>> The Board has 16 voting members, which means "*/_a vote of more
>> than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board_/*" is normally 11 votes or
>> more. However, after reading thru the Bylaws, I did not find how
>> this 2/3 is calculated. That is, the counting of votes are those
>> physically present at a meeting at the time of voting, or can be
>> casted remotely or by proxy? Also, in case one or more Board
>> members casted an "absentee" vote, the 2/3 majority is calculated
>> according to the total members who casted their votes, or is
>> according to only those who casted a for/against vote, thus
>> discounting absentee votes? (There are more cases which may
>> further complicate the outcome of calculation.)
>>
>> Such technical details may well have been addressed somewhere
>> already. In such a likely case, please kindly discard my above
>> question/comment. However, my thoughts are, at such a critical
>> time of ICANN's future, we cannot afford to overlook these details.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Kaili
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Alan Greenberg <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>> To: alac <mailto:alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 2:07 AM
>> Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Stress Test 18: bylaw
>> amendment suggestion
>>
>> This is a new proposal by Brazil to replace the current Bylaw
>> change to address Stress Test 18. It re-instates the
>> requirement that the Board reject GAC advice by a
>> supermajority, one of the ATRT outcomes that was proposed
>> several months ago. At that time, there was significant push
>> back that increasing the rejection threshhold increased the
>> power of the Board. Although possible technically correct,
>> in my mind, it would not make a difference, because rejection
>> of GAC advice, in the relatively rare times it has happened,
>> has been nearly or completely unanimous.
>>
>> This is now accompanied by a much stronger requirement to
>> consider the advice of all ACs including the ALAC.
>>
>> This may well be a way to bypass the GAC's rejection of the
>> ST18 outcomes and at first glance, I would support it.
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> Alan
>>
>>
>>> To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org"
>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:28:46 +0000
>>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Stress Test 18: bylaw amendment
>>> suggestion
>>>
>>> Dear CCWG colleagues,
>>>
>>> As you are aware, in Dublin the GAC has provided a
>>> consensus input with regards to the bylaw amendments
>>> derived from ST18. The GAC input was the following:
>>>
>>> "The discussions on Stress Test 18 have helped the GAC
>>> to have a better understanding of the different views on
>>> the issue. In assessing the different rationales
>>> presented so far related to Stress Test 18, the GAC
>>> considered:
>>> The need that each and every Advisory Committee ensures
>>> that the advice provided is clear and reflects the
>>> consensus view of the Committee;
>>> The need that each and every Advisory Committee should
>>> preserve its own autonomy in its definition of consensus;
>>> The value the Board attributes to receiving consensus
>>> advice;
>>> The recommendation of the BGRI WG, as reiterated by the
>>> ATRT2, to set the threshold for the ICANN Board to
>>> reject GAC advice to a 2/3 majority voting, consistent
>>> with the threshold established for rejection of ccNSO
>>> and GNSO PDP recommendations.
>>> In view of the above, having considered concerns
>>> expressed by various parties, the GAC agreed to further
>>> work on the issue of Stress Test 18, and to submit any
>>> further input to the CCWG taking into account the
>>> timelines of the CCWG. GAC Members will continue to work
>>> within the CCWG to finalise the proposal for enhancing
>>> ICANN accountability."
>>>
>>> With the aim of addressing the input given by the GAC in
>>> its ICANN 54 communiqué and the original concerns
>>> expressed by the ST18 proponents, I present for your
>>> consideration the following alternative amendments
>>> (underlined) in ICANN bylaws.
>>>
>>> ARTICLE XI: ADVISORY COMMITTEES
>>> Section 1. GENERAL
>>> “The Board may create one or more Advisory Committees in
>>> addition to those set forth in this Article. Advisory
>>> Committee membership may consist of Directors only,
>>> Directors and non-directors, or non-directors only, and
>>> may also include non-voting or alternate members.
>>> Advisory Committees shall have no legal authority to act
>>> for ICANN, but shall report their findings and
>>> recommendations to the Board.
>>> Where the ICANN Board is obliged to pay due deference to
>>> advice from Advisory Committees and where that advice,
>>> if not followed, requires finding mutually agreed
>>> solutions for implementation of that advice, the
>>> Advisory Committee will make every effort to ensure that
>>> the advice provided is clear and reflects the consensus
>>> view of the committee. In this context, each Advisory
>>> Committee has the right to determine its particular
>>> definition of consensus.”
>>>
>>> ARTICLE XI: ADVISORY COMMITTEES
>>> Section 2. SPECIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEES
>>> Item 1.j
>>> “The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on
>>> public policy matters shall be duly taken into account,
>>> both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the
>>> event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action
>>> that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory
>>> Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and
>>> state the reasons why it decided not to follow that
>>> advice. Any GAC Advice approved by a GAC consensus may
>>> only be rejected by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3)
>>> of the Board. The Governmental Advisory Committee and
>>> the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a
>>> timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually
>>> acceptable solution.”
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
>>> Divisão da Sociedade da Informação
>>> Ministério das Relações Exteriores
>>> T: +55 61 2030-6609
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC mailing list
>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>
>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>> <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>
>> ALAC Working Wiki:
>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC
>> <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC>
>> )
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
--
Timothy Denton 613-789-5397 line 613 222 1850 cell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20151110/be1cdb2a/attachment.html>
More information about the ALAC
mailing list