[CCWG-ACCT] Voting weights in community mechanism

Jordan Carter jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Wed Jul 29 20:32:03 UTC 2015

Hi all, hi Malcolm:

On 30 July 2015 at 08:14, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:

> > On 29 Jul 2015, at 20:37, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> wrote:
> >
> > A concern has come to our attention with this latest, new, proposal. If
> SSAC and RSSAC have 10 votes out of 35, they could jointly block a Board
> recall (75% votes required, 27 votes). Since they are both composed of
> individuals appointed by the Board, some may question their independence in
> case such a power is triggered. This could raise concerns of conflicts of
> interest.
> It's not just that. If we go with the algorithm that an abstention has the
> same effect as a vote against (as discussed on the call yesterday) then
> they will be certain to block recall, since these two organisations have
> made it abundantly clear that they do not wish to vote, do not consider it
> appropriate to their mandate, and have no intention of doing so under any
> circumstances.
I don't think it's as bad as that, unless they were to take the step to
opt-in to the system --and then-- not vote. It seems unlikely to me they
will opt in based on what they have said to us so far (but that may change
after this new CMSM model is debated).

All -- for the record, I support the 5x5 and 2x2 proposal that Mathieu has

This is for the reasons he sent out, and because of all the public comments
received, there was no clear thrust in any direction on this # of votes
question except perhaps for some greater GNSO representation. There
certainly weren't calls to boost the voting weight of the two appointed ACs.

I do understand, I think, the arguments both in favour of five-all, and of
different SO versus AC treatment. But in the end I think the model we
proposed back in PC1 hasn't seen fundamental questions arises of a degree
that means we should move from it, and I don't think any of the analysis or
work we have done convinces me we should change either.

The conflict inherent in asking groups appointed by the Board to the in
turn wield powers to hold it to account is also a practical and principled
objection to the 7x5 mechanism that hadn't occurred to me.

So - 5x5 plus 2x2 has my support.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150730/e499d87e/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list