[CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Jul 27 15:26:27 UTC 2015


Greg, to be general, I said we had decided not to 
get in on internal decision on how to allocate votes/voices.

Alan

At 27/07/2015 11:05 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>Alan,
>
>This is in reference to the "Community 
>Assembly," which has no votes, but has a limited 
>number of seats, and not the "Community 
>Mechanism," which has votes, and may have either 
>no seats at all or a potentially unlimited 
>number of seats (based on fractional voting).
>
>Still not quite sure why we are creating these 
>two separate bodies, and how they relate to each other.
>
>Greg
>
>On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>Greg, I thought one of the ground rules was that 
>other than saying that votes cast must be actual 
>decisions of the AC/SO, that we would not delve 
>into their decision process for how to allocate 
>votes and certainly not on how to allocates voices.
>
>Alan
>
>At 27/07/2015 12:36 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>>Ed,
>>
>>Thanks for the explanation (and the kind words).
>>
>>I think we still have a significant problem 
>>here, based on the language in the document 
>>(and spurred on by your explanation).
>>
>>First, the language:
>>
>>Each ICANN SO or AC would be asked to nominate 
>>between one and seven [or eight] people to 
>>participate in the ICA – this is to enssure 
>>that there is at least some presence from each 
>>part of the community in the ICA, and some 
>>likelihood that its activities and discussions 
>>will include a wide range of perspectives.  [emphasis added]
>>
>>
>>The language in red is insufficient to 
>>accomplish the objective it states -- to ensure 
>>a presence from each part of the 
>>community.  The mere fact that we give each SO 
>>and AC the opportunity to pick a number of 
>>representatives in no way "ensures" that there 
>>will be a presence from each part of the 
>>community.  A given SO or AC could choose to 
>>have fewer representatives than "each part" of 
>>that community, or it could choose a larger 
>>number but still not distribute seats so that 
>>"each part" of the community is present.  For 
>>instance, the ALAC could choose to have 3 
>>representatives (even though there are 5 RALOs) 
>>or they could choose to have 8 representatives 
>>and give 2 each to 4 RALOs and none to the 
>>5th.  It would be easy for a majority of any SO 
>>or AC to squeeze out a minority.  This would 
>>not violate the letter of this language, even 
>>though it would violate the spirit.
>>
>>Your explanation of why 8 was a good number for 
>>the GNSO specifically gave me pause: "Eight is 
>>easily divisible by two, the number of GNSO 
>>houses, and four, the number of GNSO 
>>stakeholder groups."  This is a textbook 
>>example of the problem, for the simple reason 
>>that the 3 Constituencies that comprise the CSG 
>>are not divisible by 2. If only two seats are 
>>allocated to these 3 groups, one will be frozen 
>>out and will not be present.  Any "community 
>>assembly" where one or more of these 
>>constituencies cannot be present fails to meet 
>>the most basic test for inclusion and thus fails as an organization.
>>
>>In order to avoid this outcome, whether in the 
>>GNSO, the ALAC or otherwise, the paragraph 
>>excerpted above must be modified as follows (text in red added):
>>
>>Each ICANN SO or AC would be asked to nominate 
>>between one and seven [or eight] people to 
>>participate in the ICA. Each ICANN SO or AC 
>>shall nominate at least one person from each 
>>formal part of that SO or AC wishing to be 
>>represented -- this is to ensure that there is 
>>at least some presence from each part of the 
>>community in the ICA, and some likelihood that 
>>its activities and discussions will include a wide range of perspectives.
>>
>>On a related note, I wouldn't hold my breath on 
>>GNSO structural reform....  I expect it will 
>>come eventually, but we need to plan for what is, not for what if.
>>
>>Greg
>>
>>On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Edward Morris 
>><<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>Greg,
>>
>>You were missed in Paris. I certainly hope if 
>>you decide to be part of the ICA you will be 
>>funded. The contribution you've made to our 
>>accountability effort and within the GNSO are almost beyond measure.
>>
>>Eight is easily divisible by two, the number of 
>>GNSO houses, and four, the number of GNSO 
>>stakeholder groups. I would have been happy 
>>with one (we'd all have to work together to 
>>select the one), two, four, sixteen etc. I 
>>actually think eight is a pretty good number. 
>>It allows for enough diversity yet is small enough to work with.
>>
>>I'll be up front and recognise there are a 
>>number of proposals floating around for GNSO 
>>structural reform. I hope there are some we 
>>agree on, I presume there are some we don't. We 
>>don't know the future but we do know the 
>>present. Hopefully eight gives us enough to 
>>work with regardless of the direction we go in.
>>
>>I hope this was helpful but should note this 
>>was my reasoning only. I was not involved in 
>>the selection of the number presented. I did 
>>signal my approval, though, of the work done by 
>>others on this matter for the reasons 
>>indicated. As I said then, for the reasons indicated, "good job".
>>
>>Best,
>>
>>Ed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----------
>>From: "Greg Shatan" 
>><<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>gregshatanipc at gmail.com >
>>Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 2:07 AM
>>To: "Edward Morris" <<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>egmorris1 at toast.net>
>>Cc: "James Gannon" 
>><<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>james at cyberinvasion.net  
>> >, "Alan Greenberg" 
>><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca  
>> >, "Drazek, Keith" 
>><<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>kdrazek at verisign.com>, 
>>"Jordan Carter" 
>><<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>jordan at internetnz.net.nz  
>> >, "<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>wp1 at icann.org" 
>><<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>wp1 at icann.org>, 
>>"Accountability Cross Community" 
>><<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> 
>>accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>Subject: Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly
>>
>>Edward,
>>
>>Sorry if I missed this conversation in Paris 
>>(since I didn't have the funding to get to 
>>Paris), but can you explain how 8 is the number 
>>that works best for the GNSO?  Thanks!
>>
>>Greg
>>
>>On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Edward Morris 
>><<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>Hi James,
>>
>>Thanks for picking up on this. Indeed, we did 
>>agree on having  up to eight representatives 
>>per SO/AC on the ICA. I liked that idea so much 
>>I gave a "good job" oral compliment to Alan and 
>>Steve in Paris for agreeing this number, one 
>>that best works for the GNSO. After all, the 
>>"5" we've agreed to for voting does not work 
>>well for us in the GNSO but we in the GNSO 
>>compromised there to help other communities. It 
>>was nice to see some reciprocity.  I'm sure the 
>>number "7" is just an oversight that we can 
>>correct before we put this document out for public comment.
>>
>>I believe in a robust, diverse and 
>>representative ICA. Hopefully we won't have to 
>>exercise the community powers very often but 
>>when we do I want the entire community to be 
>>represented in all it's multifaceted grandeur. 
>>One provision in our proposal would tend to 
>>discourage that: the level of support proposed for ICA members.
>>
>>I'd like to propose that we extend funding to 
>>all ICA nominees, not just the 5 voting members 
>>per group. I believe people think the CCWG 
>>funding methodology, which our proposal copies, 
>>has worked: it has not, at least not for those 
>>of us in the noncommercial community. I can 
>>tell you stories of our Istanbul meeting where 
>>I had to walk  for a half hour each night 
>>following our meetings  through a red light 
>>district to get to my bed in a youth hostel. 
>>I'm not a youth but our NCUC budget, from which 
>>I received support for the meeting, is not 
>>large. My post midnight walk on day one  (the 
>>legal subteam worked until close to midnight 
>>the first night) was particularly interesting.
>>
>>I should note the difficulty our supported 
>>Member to the CCWG has had in getting to the 
>>CCWG meetings. For Istanbul, Robin had a flight 
>>cancellation and was unable to rebook in time 
>>to attend. For Paris her initial flight had 
>>mechanical problems and she arrived after an 
>>overnight flight and during our Friday morning 
>>meeting. We should learn two things from her 
>>story: 1) never book a flight Robin is on; it's 
>>just bad luck.  :) and 2) relying upon one 
>>person to present a point of view of an entire 
>>component of our community at a meeting is not 
>>wise. With the serious nature of the issues the 
>>ICA will be considering all voices must be heard.
>>
>>I should note it's not just noncommercial 
>>participants who may be experiencing funding 
>>problems in this regard. I've spoken to 
>>multiple commercial colleagues whose companies 
>>commitment will be reduced following the ACCT 
>>project. We need to ensure maximum 
>>participation in the ICA for this proposal to 
>>be guaranteed the diversity of views and 
>>backgrounds this entire construct needs if it 
>>is to be considered legitimate by all segments of society.
>>
>>In summary: 1) We need to correct the number of 
>>ICA participants per group so that it reflects 
>>the maximum of "8" which, as James has pointed 
>>out, was the agreed position in Paris, and 2) 
>>in the interests of diversity and to ensure all 
>>voices are heard we need to support all members 
>>of the ICA, not just a select few. A two tiered 
>>nominee system should not be favoured.
>>
>>In terms of budgetary impact costs can be 
>>trimmed elsewhere if need be. It makes no sense 
>>to provide full support, for example, to SO 
>>Council members and not to those nominees who 
>>will be participating in our highest deliberative, albeit nonvoting, body.
>>
>>Thanks for considering,
>>
>>Ed
>>
>>
>>
>>----------
>>From: "James Gannon" 
>><<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>james at cyberinvasion.net >
>>Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 9:14 AM
>>To: "Alan Greenberg" 
>><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca  
>> >, "Drazek, Keith" 
>><<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>kdrazek at verisign.com>, 
>>"Jordan Carter" 
>><<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>jordan at internetnz.net.nz  
>> >, "<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>wp1 at icann.org" 
>><<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>wp1 at icann.org>, 
>>"Accountability Cross Community" 
>><<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> 
>>accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>Subject: Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly
>>
>>a)    Each ICANN SO or AC would be asked to 
>>nominate between one and seven people to 
>>participate in the ICA – tthis is to ensure 
>>that there is at least some presencee from each 
>>part of the community in the ICA, and some 
>>likelihood that its activities and discussions 
>>will include a wide range of perspectives.
>>
>>I assume the 7 is a holdover from a previous 
>>version? It was very clearly agreed to be 8 in Paris.
>>
>>-James Gannon
>>
>>From: 
>><mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org>wp1-bounces at icann.org 
>>[ mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
>>Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 7:55 PM
>>To: Drazek, Keith; Jordan Carter; 
>><mailto:wp1 at icann.org>wp1 at icann.org; Accountability Cross Community
>>Subject: Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly
>>
>>
>>And a bunch of comments from me.
>>Alan
>>At 25/07/2015 09:03 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
>>
>>
>>Thanks Jordan, this looks very good to me. 
>>Iâₚ¬™ve made a few proposed red-lined 
>>edits in the attached, supportted by comments. Happy to discuss further.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Keith
>>
>>From: 
>><mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org>wp1-bounces at icann.org 
>>[ mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter
>>Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 10:57 PM
>>To: <mailto:wp1 at icann.org>wp1 at icann.org; Accountability Cross Community
>>Subject: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly
>>
>>Hi all
>>
>>I have taken the draft material from an older 
>>paper about the ICANN Community Assembly and pulled it into one place.
>>
>>Please see attached and debate away!  I've 
>>tried to be clear on its solely advisory 
>>nature, and have suggested that this would be 
>>the forum to use for the Public Accountability 
>>Forum suggestion made by advisors a while ago.
>>
>>
>>best,
>>Jordan
>>
>>--
>>Jordan Carter
>>Chief Executive
>>InternetNZ
>>+64-495-2118 (office) | <tel:%2B64-21-442-649>+64-21-442-649 (mob)
>>Email: <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>>Skype: jordancarter
>>A better world through a better Internet
>>
>>Content-Type: 
>>application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document;
>>          name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - 
>> ICANN Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK"
>>  Comments.docx"
>>Content-Description: 5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly -
>>  v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.docx
>>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="5A3 
>>- Community Mechanism - ICANN"
>>  Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.docx"; size=32221;
>>          creation-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:37 GMT";
>>          modification-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:03:13 GMT"
>>Content-Type: application/pdf; name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN"
>>  Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf"
>>Content-Description: 5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly -
>>  v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf
>>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="5A3 
>>- Community Mechanism - ICANN"
>>  Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf"; size=24126;
>>          creation-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:46 GMT";
>>          modification-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:51 GMT"
>>_______________________________________________
>>WP1 mailing list
>><mailto:WP1 at icann.org>WP1 at icann.org
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
>_______________________________________________
>WP1 mailing list
><mailto:WP1 at icann.org>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/20150727/7828da8f/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list