[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.
>>Iââ¬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