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

[Thomas Rickert]

Correct, Alan.

Each group can come to a decision according to its own rules. This can be voting and it can even be voting based on a process specifically designed for the community powers. The GNSO could even deviate from its usual voting and bicameral approach, should it choose to do so. The CCWG is not prescriptive in that regard.

I hope this helps,
Thomas 

---
rickert.net


> Am 03.11.2015 um 10:37 schrieb Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>:
> 
> Greg, I don't have the docs at hand, but my recollection is that AC/SO are allowed to make a decision according to their own rules. In the case of the ALAC, for an issue as substantive as using one of the powers, unless the result was clearly unanimous with all members participating, we would vote.
> 
> Indeed opinions could vary, but if there is even a feeling that the current method of "majority) (I vaguely recall it might be either of two counts) is in sufficient, then it certainly should be a discussion that the GNSO Council should have, and I don't recall such an issue being formally raised.
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> At 02/11/2015 11:45 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>> ​Alan,
>> 
>> If the decision-making methodology specifies that the SO/ACs need to each make their decisions through a consensus process, the GNSO Council voting process would not seem to qualify.
>> 
>> As to whether the current system is "deemed quite satisfactory," opinions can certainly differ.
>> 
>> Greg ​
>> 
>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca > wrote:
>> Greg, I have to disagree with you on several counts.
>> 
>> The GNSO voting mechanisms were indeed designed to make decisions based on a majority or supermajority. The current two-house voting thresholds were designed to emulate the simpler vote-counting in the last incarnation of the GNSO (I was one of the people who agonized over how to emulate those earlier simpler rules). Perhaps the current rule for "majority" is no satisfactory and needs to be changed, but if so, that is a decision that the GNSO can make.
>> 
>> The GNSO uses a "majority" to decide to accept or reject new rules, and it has been used for a host of other types of decisions over the years.
>> 
>> The methodology is deemed quite satisfactory to make decision related to the management of policy. But it is also what will be used in deciding if the GNSO will creation or support a petition for the new powers. And it will be the methodology used to decide to remove a GNSO director.
>> 
>> The GNSO is not unique in having multiple positions amongst its members.
>> 
>> I could go on...
>> 
>> Alan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> At 01/11/2015 07:51 PM, Greg Shatan 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151103/203cdc53/attachment.html>