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

[Alan Greenberg]

The ALAC was not originally created to exercise the powers we are now 
describing. NEITHER WAS THE GNSO, THE ccNSO OR THE ASO. They were 
created to recommend policy in their respective domains.

Everything we are doing here is new and perhaps we do need to alter 
the Bylaw description of the units (I don't think so...).

But quoting what is in the current Bylaws will simply certify that we 
do not have the powers that we now say we need.

Alan

At 26/07/2015 09:10 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)
><mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>Skype: jordancarter
>
>To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>_______________________________________________
>WP1 mailing list
>WP1 at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150727/eeb612ba/attachment.html>