[CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Revised draft - Voting weights in community mechanism

Mon Jul 27 04:56:48 UTC 2015

Dear Jordan
We are not on the same wave-length
We discussed several time in the past that irrespective that any OC or AC
decides not to participate at any voting, their right would be clearly and
specifically included in the Bylaws.
Today SSAC decide not to participate two years after , taking into account
the circumstances , it may decide to participate. If their rights are not
included in the Bylaws( Fundamental 0 then at that time we need to change
the Bylaws which would be time consuming, tedious and may be unsuccessful
as the threshold may not be met.
Pls kindly and serious reconsider the matter and include their very rights
in the Bylaws, if they decide not to vote for sometimes or decide not to
vote for certain issues then they will not be counted and that is all
However, if at later stage they decide to vote or for any subject which may
be arise in future and important and crucial to them they may decide to
vote on that specific issue thus they have such possibility without a need
to modify Bylaws.
Regards
Kavouss

2015-07-27 5:58 GMT+02:00 Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler at auda.org.au>:

> All,
>
>
>
> I have followed the development of this issue over the last few weeks and
> felt a degree of confidence in the mechanisms Jordan had outlined.
>
> However, given the very recent consternation over the issue, I would like
> to propose a procedural solution / question.
>
>
>
> Would it not be possible for us to separate the definition of voting
> structures from the timing of participation?
>
> In other words – could we agree upon the voting weights for SOs and ACs
> (5,5,5,5,5,2,2) as a matter of principle and also agree that each can join
> at a time of their choosing?
>
> Such a mechanism would require certain caveats – such as a three month
> notice period for engagement, for example.
>
>
>
> Just an idea.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> Paul Szyndler | General Manager, International and Government Affairs
> .au Domain Administration Limited
> T: +61 2 6292 5034 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 | M: +61 402 250 389
> E: paul.szyndler at auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au
> Twitter: @auda <http://twitter.com/auda> | Blog: www.auda.org.au/blog/
>
>
> auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator
>
> *Important Notice*
>
> This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to
> legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only.
> If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy
> any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please
> notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
>
> <http://www.igf.org.au/>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jordan
> Carter
> *Sent:* Monday, 27 July 2015 1:43 PM
> *To:* Arun Sukumar
> *Cc:* <wp1 at icann.org>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org Community
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Revised draft - Voting weights in
> community mechanism
>
>
>
> Hi everyone
>
>
>
> We did have a great chance to discuss the voting weights question in our
> two days of face to face time in Paris a week or so ago.
>
>
>
> This issue of representation was scoped out in our first PC report, which
> you'll recall had:
>
>
>
> Five votes each for:
>
> - ASO
>
> - ccNSO
>
> - GNSO
>
> - GAC
>
> - At Large
>
>
>
> Two votes each for:
>
> - RSSAC
>
> - SSAC
>
>
>
> We have clear advice that the last-mentioned ACs do not want to
> participate at this time, and I have an impression that GAC is still
> discussing its participation.
>
>
>
> [We are, by the by, going to have to set out how the remaining ACs will be
> able to opt in at a future point, presumably on the same basis in terms of
> # of votes as set out above.]
>
>
>
> In the public comments that came in on the voting weights, there was no
> overwhelming feedback to suggest that the ALAC numbers were a problem.
>
>
>
> How can we workably get this matter resolved?
>
>
>
> What is a compromise that can be lived with - is a referral of this
> question to WS2 in a suitable way possible?
>
>
>
> I don't think we should leave the matter of votes open, and I don't think
> we should provide options again. We did that last time, and the feedback
> was happy enough with what we had proposed.
>
>
>
> Robin, Ed, Arun, Alan, all:
>
>
>
> what can we do to get this working?
>
>
>
> cheers
>
> Jordan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 27 July 2015 at 15:25, Arun Sukumar <arun.sukumar at nludelhi.ac.in>
> wrote:
>
> Agree with Robin and Ed on the issue of equal representation to ALAC. If
> at-large is designed to represent internet users, are we really suggesting
> that 5 votes will do justice to the diversity of views in this wide
> constituency? ALAC, in my personal opinion, should remain an advisory
> entity.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
>
>
> On 27 Jul 2015, at 07:53, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
> Robin, the ALAC and GAC have everything to do with the Public Interest,
> which is paramount in ICANN's mission.
>
> Alan
>
> At 26/07/2015 09:41 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>
> Thanks for bringing this up, Edward.  I am having a hard time accepting
> that ALAC and GAC should have an equal role as GNSO and CCNSO on these
> issues.  GAC and ALAC currently have advisory roles and this proposal
> certainly evolves and elevates those roles in relation to the SO's, so I
> cannot accept it.
>
> GAC and ALAC should continue to have *advisory* roles, which I understand
> the GAC may be prepared to accept.  But giving ALAC such an elevated
> representation (which overlaps with NCSG and CSG) is a problem in my view.
> If it goes out as "equal weights" to the ACs, I believe I'll be compelled
> to issue a minority report on this issue of weighted votes.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
> On Jul 26, 2015, at 6:10 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
>
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> In reviewing document 5A2 I’ve come across what I believe is an inaccuracy
> that I hope we can to work together to correct. Actually, to be honest, the
> inaccuracy was discovered and reported to me by a member of the NCSG, which
> I represent on the GNSO Council.  I’m referring to this paragraph,
> specifically that portion I have italicized:
>
> -----
>
> The community mechanism gives the bulk of influence on an equal basis
> between the three SOs for which ICANN deals with policy development and the *At-Large
> Advisory Committee (which was structurally designed to represent Internet
> users within ICANN)*. If a new SO or another AC gains voting rights in
> the community mechanism at a later stage, they would receive an equal
> number of votes.
>
> -----
>
> The description of ALAC is simply not true.
>
> I refer everyone to the ICANN Bylaws, article X, section 4(a), which
> states:
>
> -----
>
> The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is the primary organizational home
> within ICANN for individual Internet users. The role of the ALAC shall be
> to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they
> relate to the interests of individual Internet users. This includes
> policies created through ICANN's Supporting Organizations, as well as the
> many other issues for which community input and advice is appropriate. The
> ALAC, which plays an important role in ICANN's accountability mechanisms,
> also coordinates some of ICANN's outreach to individual Internet users.
>
> ----
>
> ALAC was structurally designed to “*consider and provide advice*” on the
> activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of *individual
> Internet users*”. It was NOT  “structurally designed to represent
> Internet users within ICANN”.
>
> Two inaccuracies:
>
> 1. ALAC was designed with to be the home of *individual *Internet users.
> Many Internet users are not individuals. ALAC was not “structurally
> designed” to be the “home” of any of them, it’s structural remit being
> limited to individual Internet users;
>
> 2. ALAC was not “structurally designed” to represent anyone. It was
> “structurally designed” to “consider and provide advice” to ICANN on behalf
> of individual Internet users.
>
> To help illustrate the difference, I would refer you to section 1.1 of the
> Board approved Non-Commercial Stakeholder group Charter, which reads:
>
> ----
>
> The purpose of the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) is to
> *represent*, through its elected representatives and its Constituencies,
> the interests and concerns of non-commercial registrants and non-commercial
> Internet users of generic Top-Level domains.
>
> ---
>
> The NCSG was designed to have a representative function. It is accurate to
> state that the NCSG was “structurally designed” to *represent* both
> non-commercial registrants and non-commercial Internet users of generic
> Top-Level domains with ICANN. The same remit for it’s designated community
> cannot be attributed to ALAC.
>
> As an advisory committee ALAC does not have the same functional design as
> the NCSG, a constituent part of the GNSO,  in terms of representation at
> ICANN. ALAC’s function is to “consider and provide advice”. The NCSG’s
> function is to “represent”. They are different.
>
> We need to be accurate in the information we put in the document we are
> creating for public comment. As has happened here, members of the community
> will pick up on inaccuracies and that will lead to credibility problems for
> our entire effort.
>
> I suggest that the following language be substituted in document 52A:
>
> ---
>
> The community mechanism gives the bulk of influence on an equal basis
> between the three SOs for which ICANN deals with policy development and the
> At-Large Advisory Committee (which was structurally designed to *consider
> and provide advice on behalf of individual *Internet users within ICANN).
> If a new SO or another AC gains voting rights in the community mechanism at
> a later stage, they would receive an equal number of votes.
>
> ---
>
> I will note that this proposed language has been taken directly from the
> ICANN bylaws, modified only by a joining clause. It is accurate. The
> previous language was not.
>
> I recognize that accuracy in description might cause some to question the
> appropriate role of some groups going forward. If so, it might be a
> conversation we need to have. At the moment, though, I’m just trying to
> make sure our documentation reflects reality rather than aspiration.
>
> Thanks for considering,
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From*: "Jordan Carter" <jordan at internetnz.net.nz >
> *Sent*: Sunday, July 26, 2015 6:30 AM
> *To*: wp1 at icann.org, accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject*: [CCWG-ACCT] Revised draft - Voting weights in community
> mechanism
>
> Hi everyone
>
> Here is an update of the previously not-updated text on voting weights. I
> am sorry that I haven’t got tracked changes to show you - it’s not much
> changed from what was circulated a few days ago (the redline staff draft
> that hadn’t actually been finished).
>
> We still need to develop quorum and participation rules - I believe Bernie
> is working on a paper on this, for discussion next week.
>
> This is on the agenda for WP1 on 27 July.
>
> best
> Jordan
>
>
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Skype: jordancarter
>
>
> *To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
> +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Skype: jordancarter
>
>
> *A better world through a better Internet *
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150727/51d9fee1/attachment.html>