[CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Homework from WP1 call on Fri 30-Oct

Mon Nov 2 13:21:38 UTC 2015

Thanks Greg for raising these issues and for the helpful charts.  

While we probably don't want to complicate things further, we might want to look at some of these issues on a more issue-based basis to determine appropriate levels of community support and distribution of decision making.  For example, over 95% of the ICANN budget is funded by gTLD registrants, registrars and registries, shouldn't the GNSO have some greater weight in a decision to override the budget when such a decision could impact their fees directly?  In decisions impacting gTLD registries, shouldn't the gTLD registries have at least the same voting weight as the ccTLD registries and not 1/4th the weight?  Similarly, shouldn't the CCNSO have greater weight in a decision to amend Article IX of the ICANN Bylaws, which is limited to just how the CCNSO operates?  

Jon

> On Nov 1, 2015, at 11:36 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Seun, 
> 
> I'm just reflecting reality.
> 
> You are comparing applies and oranges.  An Internet Registry is an Internet Registry, and an At-Large Organization is an At-Large Organization.  The differences between the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies are far deeper and more fundamental than the differences in geography that define the RALOs and RIRs.  (That's not to minimize the differing priorities that are driven by geography, but it's still far less significant than the differences between, e.g., a registry and a non-commercial stakeholder and an ISP.)
> 
> I'll flip the question on its head -- what's the point in grouping together the various stakeholder groups and constituencies of the GNSO, except for the GNSO policy development function?
> 
> Greg
> 
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hello Greg,
> 
> I am not sure I understand the reason for breaking the GNSO in the manner you presented, whats the actual goal? and if you want to really go the breaking path then you would break ALAC into 5 RALOs, break ASO into 5 RIRs, break ccTLDs into ccNSO/non-ccNSO etc.
> 
> I think the point is that equal weight is required across the SO/AC in consensus observation towards exercising community powers.
> 
> Regards 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Here's a revised chart -- please disregard the prior one.
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
> I have continuing concerns at the overall level (this does not describe a consensus process) and specifically as regards the view of the GNSO (the GNSO does not have a process for consensus decision making; the process fails to recognize that the GNSO is an organization for gTLD policy-making (and the GNSO Council is a policy management body), and that for any other purpose the groups participating in the GNSO represent discrete stakeholder communities).  Nothing I've read or heard has resolved these concerns.
> 
> However, whether we view this as a consensus process or a proto-voting process, I'm still grappling with the "weighting" issue (which in turn leads to the "fractional" or "splitting" issue).
> 
> In order to visualize the relative weights under 3 different scenarios, I prepared 3 pie charts, which I've put in the attached document.  (Note that this reflects my concern that the stakeholder communities participating in the GNSO should be viewed separately for purposes other then gTLD policy-making.  Note also that I've assumed that any "ccNSO" participation would need to take into account non-ccNSO ccTLDs, so I've reflected that in the pie chart labeling.)  Apologies for some "rounding errors" (literally); but these do not affect the substance.  Use these charts as you see fit....  I'm happy to revise, or prepare other charts, if need be.
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
> Resending as some had a problem reading the file.  - Robin
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 30, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
>> Thanks, Steve.  
>> 
>> All, attached is an exploration of the option to provide 4 units to ASO, CCNSO, and GNSO + 2 units to ALAC, as mirrored on the existing board structure.  The threshold percentages were taken from the 2nd draft proposal, and then just transposed into a pool of 14 weighted fractional units.   Suggestions for improvements and comments on this proposal are much appreciated.  (My additions are the comments in pink color in the attached document).
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> <alternative weights in Community Mechanism.docx>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
>> 
>>> Attached is my “homework” assignment today — reflecting split voting option for each AC/SO to decide  whether to exercise a community power.   I updated just the Appendix that Jordan circulated for today’s call, adding explanations and a new column on the decision table (also shown below).  
>>> 
>>> <Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png>
>>> 
>>> From: <wp1-bounces at icann.org <mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Jordan Carter
>>> Date: Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:06 AM
>>> To: "wp1 at icann.org <mailto:wp1 at icann.org>"
>>> Subject: [WP1] Pls Read - Agenda for Meeting - WP1 on Fri 30 October at 18h UTC
>>> 
>>> Hi all
>>> 
>>> Our call is on Friday from 18h UTC, and may last up to two hours.
>>> 
>>> The proposed agenda items are as follows. PLEASE READ THIS AGENDA CAREFULLY as it sets out how I propose we run the meeting and the questions I propose we aim to answer.
>>> 
>>> 1. Review of Agenda
>>> 
>>> 2. Decision-making in the Community Mechanism
>>> This agenda item should look at decision-making, and seeing where the WP sits with key issues raised in the "Dublin Approach".
>>> 
>>> To prepare for this item I suggest reading the following papers:
>>> - Community Decision-Making: The Dublin Approach Working Paper
>>> - Public Comment Analysis - Voting in the community mechanism
>>> 
>>> If you have time, also have a look at the staff analysis of public comments - the "Model" and "Voting-Forum" tabs in particular.
>>> 
>>> Papers attached or linked below. I have not updated the Dublin Approach paper, but kept the very valuable comments, and moved Robin's added issues into separate rows in the Issues Table.
>>> 
>>> My suggestion is that we deal with the following specific questions, as they are the key changes in the model compared with what we presented in the Second Draft Proposal. We should for each question identify whether we have a consensus on them or whether we don't -- so we can advise the full CCWG of WP1's views.
>>> 
>>> a) Do we support the decision-making model (by consensus) replacing the voting approach?
>>> 
>>> b) Do we support only one view being expressed by each SO or AC?
>>> 
>>> c) Do we support an equal say for each participating SO or AC?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> We also need to address the following:
>>> 
>>> d) In our Third Draft Proposal, which SOs and ACs do we propose should be participating? that is, do we respect the SSAC's desire not to, and do we take a view re RSSAC?
>>> 
>>> e) Based on our answer to d), do we need to make any changes to the numbers in the decision-making framework?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 3. Other Work Required by WP1
>>> I do not have a current list of work we need to do in the next fortnight but believe this will be clearer following next week's CCWG. I welcome staff or co-chairs' input on this at this point of the WP1 agenda, and of course suggestions from WP1 participants.
>>> 
>>> 4. Any Other Business
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Papers
>>> 
>>> I attach PDFs of the Dublin Approach paper and of the Public Comment report section on voting.
>>> 
>>> The Dublin paper Google Doc is at: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHZl_NvQ1WChatX8NT2Q1rQi4zQZgbrbAxrQSsH3tZQ/edit <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHZl_NvQ1WChatX8NT2Q1rQi4zQZgbrbAxrQSsH3tZQ/edit>>
>>> 
>>> The full WP1 Public Comment is at: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56142506/2015-10-12-CCWG-WP1-SecondPC-FullAnalysis.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1444644438000&api=v2 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56142506/2015-10-12-CCWG-WP1-SecondPC-FullAnalysis.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1444644438000&api=v2>>
>>> 
>>> You may also find the staff analysis of Public Comments useful, which deals with voting specifically in a couple of the tabs (Model and Voting-Forum): <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54693137/PC2%20tool%20-%2024%20SeptBTv2.xlsx?version=1&modificationDate=1443208173000&api=v2 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54693137/PC2%20tool%20-%2024%20SeptBTv2.xlsx?version=1&modificationDate=1443208173000&api=v2>>
>>> 
>>> cheers
>>> Jordan
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Jordan Carter
>>> 
>>> Chief Executive 
>>> InternetNZ
>>> 
>>> +64-4-495-2118 <tel:%2B64-4-495-2118> (office) | +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob)
>>> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz> 
>>> Skype: jordancarter
>>> Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz/> 
>>> 
>>> A better world through a better Internet 
>>> 
>>> <Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.pdf><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.docx>_______________________________________________
>>> 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>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Seun Ojedeji,
> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
> web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/>
> Mobile: +2348035233535 <>
> alt email:  <http://goog_1872880453/>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng <mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>
> 
> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151102/19a871a7/attachment.html>