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

Mon Nov 2 16:04:35 UTC 2015

Hi Alan,

Yes, the NomCom is made of designators in the same pool, so it is taken into account.

However, if you put the two board selection mechanisms (Nomcom and direct election) together into a weighted average, the Advisory Committees select 3.64 board members out of the total of 16, or 23%, just less than a quarter of the total. The SOs account for the remaining 77%. Even if the denominator is decreased to 15 (accounting for ICANN’s CEO on the board), the weighted average only increases to 24%, still less than a quarter of the total.  The analysis has been done: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/08/11/ccwg-community-mechanism-threatens-to-upset-icann-balance/

So this move in Dublin goes in the opposite direction of what we received public comments on.  It also goes against our longstanding principle to not use this accountability process as a means to alter the relative power balance among the SO-ACs from the existing structure.  As the numbers clearly show, this recent move is a major change in the extent to which it dilutes the SOs relative to the ACs.

Thanks,
Robin

On Nov 1, 2015, at 4:38 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> Robin, I was not at this meeting, but if I had been, I would have reminded the group that the 7 board members on which you base this distribution is NOT the entire board. There are an additional 8 board members selected by the NomCom plus the CEO, and any new community mechanism cannot ignore that the SOs+ALAC are only part of the board.
> 
> There may be multiple ways of addressing this, but it is clear to me that one cannot base any new power structure on what is less than half of the current board. That would put 6/7ths of the power in the SOs which only have 6/16 of the current board.
> 
> I also note that you seem to have reverted to the pure voting percentages in the August proposal instead of the consensus model proposed in Dublin.
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> 
> At 01/11/2015 06:10 PM, Robin Gross 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 ï¿½homeworkï¿½ assignment today ï¿½ 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 todayï¿½s 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> on behalf of Jordan Carter
>>>> Date: Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:06 AM
>>>> To: "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 >
>>>> 
>>>> 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 >
>>>> 
>>>> 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 >
>>>> 
>>>> cheers
>>>> Jordan
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Jordan Carter
>>>> 
>>>> Chief Executive 
>>>> InternetNZ
>>>> 
>>>> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
>>>> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz 
>>>> Skype: jordancarter
>>>> Web: 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
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WP1 mailing list
>>> WP1 at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>> 
>> 
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151102/db23cf52/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151102/db23cf52/signature.asc>