[CCWG-ACCT] Voting weights in community mechanism

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Wed Jul 29 23:17:33 UTC 2015

I support this approach as well (5X5, 2x2) for the current document.  We
may want to highlight this as a specific point for comment.


On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:

> Thanks to the Co-Chairs for this message.
> I agree that the best approach at this time is to revert to the 5x5 and
> 2X2 reference model included in our first proposal. It received support and
> we obviously don't have consensus on a replacement model.  We'll continue
> to discuss and debate the issue of vote distribution, but I suggest we'd be
> better off doing so AFTER we receive community feedback from the upcoming
> public comment period.
> Regards,
> Keith
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu
> Weill
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 9:37 PM
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Voting weights in community mechanism
> Dear Colleagues,
> You will remember that our Initial Report Reference Model on voting
> weights was 5 votes for ccNSO, gNSO, ASO, ALAC and GAC, 2 for SSAC and
> RSSAC. During the public comment period, we have received some comments
> (largely debated since on the list) with regards to the respective number
> of votes of gNSO and ALAC, and these are well noted.
> During our call on Tuesday we discussed the voting weight section of the
> community mechanism proposal and asked for WP1 to refine its proposal
> accordingly. The topic was then discussed again during the WP1 call that
> followed a few hours later. WP1 agreed to submit to our group a proposal
> with 5 votes for each SO or AC, pending intentions from GAC, SSAC and RSSAC
> to joint the mechanism as voting members. (see latest doc here :
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888421/5A2-Community-Mechanism-Voting-PenultimateDraft.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1438079125000&api=v2
> )
> 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.
> We discussed this between co-chairs and with Jordan as WP1 rapporteurs,
> and as a consequence would like to suggest we go back to the initial
> Reference model (5x5 and 2x2 votes) as a basis for our public comment
> document.
> This proposal will be on our agenda for Thursday's calls but we wanted to
> provide this heads-up in advance in order to facilitate an informed
> discussion.
> Best regards,
> Thomas, Leon & Mathieu
> Co-chairs
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150729/67f39f0d/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list