<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I agree with Alan's position in this, for the reasons he stated.<br>
<br>
TMD<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/10/2015 3:45 PM, Kan Kaili wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:98781066539B40078DB819CFE53382A3@LENOVOC0574B68"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<style></style>
<div><font size="2" face="宋体">Hi, Alan,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="宋体">Thank you very much for your prompt
reply.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="宋体">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.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="宋体">Also, thank you very much for
answering my question on the calculation of votes.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="宋体">Best regards,</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="宋体">Kaili</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT:
5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir="ltr">
<div style="FONT: 9pt 宋体">----- Original Message ----- </div>
<div style="FONT: 9pt 宋体; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color:
black"><b>From:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca"
href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">Alan Greenberg</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 9pt 宋体"><b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="kankaili@gmail.com" href="mailto:kankaili@gmail.com">Kan
Kaili</a> ; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org"
href="mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org">alac</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 9pt 宋体"><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, November 10,
2015 10:42 PM</div>
<div style="FONT: 9pt 宋体"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [ALAC] Fwd:
[CCWG-ACCT] Stress Test 18: bylaw amendment suggestion</div>
<div><br>
</div>
Thanks Kaili,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
<br>
At 10/11/2015 03:22 AM, Kan Kaili wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="cite" cite="" type="cite"><font size="2">Hi,
Alan,<br>
</font> <br>
<font size="2">Thank you for collecting comments from our ALAC
members.<br>
</font> <br>
<font size="2">Regarding the statement "</font>The need that
each and every Advisory Committee should preserve its own
autonomy in its definition of consensus<font size="2">" and "</font><font
size="4" face="Calibri"><b><i><u>each Advisory Committee has
the right to determine its particular definition of
consensus</u></i></b></font><font size="2">",
considering:<br>
</font><br>
<font size="2">-- the final decision's responsibility and
power rests at the Board;<br>
</font> <br>
<font size="2">-- ACs are to provide "advices" instead of
instructions nor guidance to the Board;<br>
<br>
-- 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;<br>
</font> <br>
<font size="2">-- in order to provide richer advices to the
Board for consideration and decision making,<br>
</font> <br>
<font size="2">I suggest to make the follwing modification:<br>
</font> <br>
<font size="2">"... each Advisory Committee has the right to
determine its particular definition of consensus. <b>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.</b>"<br>
</font> <br>
<font size="2">Another comment is more of a question and more
technical, which maybe because I am new:<br>
</font> <br>
<font size="2">The Board has 16 voting members, which means "</font><font
size="4" face="Calibri"><b><i><u>a vote of more than
two-thirds (2/3) of the Board</u></i></b></font><font
size="2">" 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.)<br>
</font> <br>
<font size="2">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.<br>
</font> <br>
<font size="2">Thank you.<br>
</font> <br>
<font size="2">Best regards,<br>
Kaili<br>
</font> <br>
<br>
<dl>
<dd>----- Original Message ----- <br>
</dd>
<dd>From: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">Alan Greenberg</a>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org">alac</a> <br>
</dd>
<dd>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 2:07 AM<br>
</dd>
<dd>Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Stress Test 18: bylaw
amendment suggestion<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>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.<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>This is now accompanied by a much stronger requirement
to consider the advice of all ACs including the ALAC.<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>This may well be a way to bypass the GAC's rejection of
the ST18 outcomes and at first glance, I would support it.<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>Comments?<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>Alan<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="cite" cite="" type="cite"> <dd>To:
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">"accountability-cross-community@icann.org"</a><br>
</dd>
<dd><x-tab> </x-tab>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"><accountability-cross-community@icann.org></a><br>
</dd>
<dd>Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:28:46 +0000<br>
</dd>
<dd>Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Stress Test 18: bylaw amendment
suggestion<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>Dear CCWG colleagues, <br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd><font size="2" face="Calibri">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:<br>
<br>
</font> </dd>
<dd>"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: </dd>
<dd>The need that each and every Advisory Committee
ensures that the advice provided is clear and reflects
the consensus view of the Committee; </dd>
<dd>The need that each and every Advisory Committee
should preserve its own autonomy in its definition of
consensus; </dd>
<dd>The value the Board attributes to receiving
consensus advice; </dd>
<dd>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. <br>
</dd>
<dd>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." <br>
<font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
</font> </dd>
<dd>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. <br>
</dd>
<dd> <br>
</dd>
<dd><font size="4" face="Calibri">ARTICLE XI: ADVISORY
COMMITTEES<br>
</font></dd>
<dd><font size="4" face="Calibri">Section 1. GENERAL<br>
</font></dd>
<dd><font size="4" face="Calibri">“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.<br>
</font></dd>
<dd><font size="4" face="Calibri">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.” <br>
</font></dd>
<dd><font size="4" face="Calibri"><br>
</font></dd>
<dd><font size="4" face="Calibri">ARTICLE XI: ADVISORY
COMMITTEES<br>
</font></dd>
<dd><font size="4" face="Calibri">Section 2. SPECIFIC
ADVISORY COMMITTEES<br>
</font></dd>
<dd><font size="4" face="Calibri">Item 1.j<br>
</font></dd>
<dd><font size="4" face="Calibri">“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.”<br>
<br>
</font> </dd>
<dd>Kind regards,<br>
<font size="2" face="Calibri"><br>
</font></dd>
<dd><font size="2" face="Calibri">Pedro Ivo Ferraz da
Silva<br>
</font></dd>
<dd><font size="2" face="Calibri">Divisão da Sociedade
da Informação<br>
</font></dd>
<dd><font size="2" face="Calibri">Ministério das
Relações Exteriores<br>
</font></dd>
<dd><font size="2" face="Calibri">T: +55 61 2030-6609<br>
</font><font size="4" face="Calibri"><br>
</font> </dd>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
</dd>
<dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
</dd>
<dd><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
</dd>
<dd><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
eudora="autourl">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</dd>
</blockquote>
<br>
<hr> </dd>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
</dd>
<dd>ALAC mailing list<br>
</dd>
<dd><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
</dd>
<dd><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac"
eudora="autourl">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>At-Large Online: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org/" eudora="autourl">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a><br>
</dd>
<dd>ALAC Working Wiki: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC"
eudora="autourl">https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC</a>
)<br>
</dd>
</dl>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a>
At-Large Online: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
ALAC Working Wiki: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Timothy Denton
613-789-5397 line
613 222 1850 cell</div>
</body>
</html>