[CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Revised draft - Voting weights in community mechanism
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Jul 28 22:27:05 UTC 2015
You are conflating ccTLD, gTLD and addressing
"policy matters" with overall administration of the name and address space.
I guess I have trouble understanding how
organisations that were created solely to provide
recommendations on gTLD, ccTLD and addressing
policy under the current proposal now may
combined have a greater ultimate say in the final
determination of administrative matters, such as
the budget and strategic plan, than those
organisations that are responsible for ensuring
that ICANN is a names and numbers good custodian
overseeing the stability, security of the DNS and
ensuring that the public interest is preserved.
Alan
At 28/07/2015 06:49 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
>Matt, James, Robin and all,
>
>I guess I have trouble understanding how
>organisations that were created to provide
>advice under the current proposal now combined
>have a greater ultimate say in the final
>determination of policy matters, such as the
>budget and strategic plan, than those
>organisations created to develop policy. The
>uncertainty of which groups will in the end will
>be involved is also unsettling. I guess like the
>rest of the world I'll just have to wait until
>representatives of ICANN appear before Senator
>Ed Markey and other members of the United States
>Congress and explain why a complete
>reorganisation of the function, purpose and
>relative standing of components of the ICANN
>community was necessary to achieve
>accountability within ICANN if, in fact, the proposed model actually does that.
>
>Best,
>
>Ed
>
>
>
>
>----------
>From: "Matthew Shears" <mshears at cdt.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 11:01 AM
>To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>,
>"Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>,
>"Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org>, "Edward
>Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net>, "wp1 at icann.org"
><wp1 at icann.org>,
>"accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>Community" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Revised draft -
>Voting weights in community mechanism
>
>James, all
>
>I have to say that the more that this
>conversation on voting in the community
>mechanism persists the more I am convinced that
>the ACs should remain in an advisory capacity
>(and the fact that the weighting changed again
>yesterday is not encouraging). I also suspect
>that uncertainty over whether or not certain ACs
>are going to exercise their right to vote could
>be an unacceptable unknown in an otherwise relatively solid proposal.
>
>Matthew
>
>On 7/27/2015 3:19 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:
>>Hi Alan -
>>
>>I dont see the equivalency between ALAC and
>>GAC on the issue of Public Interest. Agree
>>with Robin & ED that there is significant
>>overlap between ALAC and the NCSG, CSG, and
>>even the customers served by contracted
>>parties, and that both ACs should retain their advisory roles.
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>J.
>>
>>
>>From:
>><<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
>>on behalf of Alan Greenberg
>><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>>Date: Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 21:23
>>To: Robin Gross
>><<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>robin at ipjustice.org>,
>>Edward Morris
>><<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>egmorris1 at toast.net>,
>>"<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>wp1 at icann.org"
>><<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>wp1 at icann.org>,
>>"<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>Community"
>><<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Revised draft -
>>Voting weights in community mechanism
>>
>>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"
>>>><<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>jordan at internetnz.net.nz >
>>>>Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 6:30 AM
>>>>To:
>>>><mailto:wp1 at icann.org>wp1 at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>,
>>>><mailto:accountability-cross-community 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.
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>WP1 mailing list
>>><mailto:WP1 at icann.org>WP1 at icann.org
>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>--
>Matthew Shears
>Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>+ 44 (0)771 247 2987
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150728/9cb92bf9/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list