[CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Revised draft - Voting weights in community mechanism
Mathieu Weill
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Mon Jul 27 15:42:05 UTC 2015
Hi Robin,
I have doubts that the WS1 proposals would be deemed sufficient for
certification by the NTIA if we don't provide a clear view of the voting
weights to exercice the community powers. That would lead to significant
uncertainty regarding the risks of capture, for example.
Best,
Mathieu
Le 27/07/2015 16:58, Robin Gross a écrit :
> The problem with our proposal is that it doesn't take into account the
> different roles of the various stakeholders at ICANN. It also leads
> to double-representation of certain users who participate in both the
> GNSO and the ALAC. These are not insignificant concerns, but major
> holes in the proposal that will need to be dealt with in the interests
> of organizational accountability.
>
> Perhaps we need to move this issue to WS2, where we can have a
> meaningful discussion of the appropriate roles of stakeholders in this
> new model, relative weights, and participation rights.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
> On Jul 27, 2015, at 7:49 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>
>> If you are saying that 5 votes is insufficient to represent the views
>> of those charged with supporting the 3 billion Internet users, we
>> will gladly accept more votes. ;-)
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> At 26/07/2015 11:25 PM, Arun Sukumar 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
>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>> <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz> >
>>>>>> *Sent*: Sunday, July 26, 2015 6:30 AM
>>>>>> *To*: wp1 at icann.org <mailto:wp1 at icann.org>,
>>>>>> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>>>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> WP1 mailing list
>>>>> WP1 at icann.org <mailto:WP1 at icann.org>
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>> <mailto: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
--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150727/d1b0134b/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list