<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi Robin, <br>
<br>
I have doubts that the WS1 proposals would be deemed sufficient for
certification by the NTIA if we don't provide a clear view of the
voting weights to exercice the community powers. That would lead to
significant uncertainty regarding the risks of capture, for example.
<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Mathieu<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 27/07/2015 16:58, Robin Gross a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2E632CE7-E3EA-4A21-B18D-7BD1FCFDD846@ipjustice.org"
type="cite">The problem with our proposal is that it doesn't take
into account the different roles of the various stakeholders at
ICANN. It also leads to double-representation of certain users
who participate in both the GNSO and the ALAC. These are not
insignificant concerns, but major holes in the proposal that will
need to be dealt with in the interests of organizational
accountability.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Perhaps we need to move this issue to WS2, where we can have
a meaningful discussion of the appropriate roles of stakeholders
in this new model, relative weights, and participation rights. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>Robin<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Jul 27, 2015, at 7:49 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
If you are saying that 5 votes is insufficient to
represent the views of
those charged with supporting the 3 billion Internet
users, we will
gladly accept more votes. ;-)<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
At 26/07/2015 11:25 PM, Arun Sukumar wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite"
cite="x-msg://1533/">Agree with Robin and Ed on the
issue of equal representation to ALAC. If at-large is
designed to
represent internet users, are we really suggesting
that 5 votes will do
justice to the diversity of views in this wide
constituency? ALAC, in my
personal opinion, should remain an advisory entity.<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPad<br>
<br>
<br>
On 27 Jul 2015, at 07:53, Alan Greenberg
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite"
cite="x-msg://1533/">Robin, the ALAC and GAC have
everything to do with the Public Interest, which is
paramount in ICANN's
mission. <br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
At 26/07/2015 09:41 PM, Robin Gross wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite"
cite="x-msg://1533/">Thanks for bringing this up,
Edward. I am having a hard time accepting that
ALAC and GAC should
have an equal role as GNSO and CCNSO on these
issues. GAC and ALAC
currently have advisory roles and this proposal
certainly evolves and
elevates those roles in relation to the SO's, so I
cannot accept
it. <br>
<br>
GAC and ALAC should continue to have *advisory*
roles, which I understand
the GAC may be prepared to accept. But giving
ALAC such an elevated
representation (which overlaps with NCSG and CSG)
is a problem in my
view. If it goes out as "equal weights" to the
ACs, I
believe I'll be compelled to issue a minority
report on this issue of
weighted votes.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Robin<br>
<br>
<br>
On Jul 26, 2015, at 6:10 PM, Edward Morris wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite"
cite="x-msg://1533/">Hi everybody,<br>
<br>
In reviewing document 5A2 I’ve come across what
I believe is an
inaccuracy that I hope we can to work together
to correct. Actually, to
be honest, the inaccuracy was discovered and
reported to me by a member
of the NCSG, which I represent on the GNSO
Council. I’m referring
to this paragraph, specifically that portion I
have italicized:<br>
<br>
-----<br>
<br>
The community mechanism gives the bulk of
influence on an equal basis
between the three SOs for which ICANN deals with
policy development and
the <i>At-Large Advisory Committee (which was
structurally designed to
represent Internet users within ICANN)</i>. If
a new SO or another AC
gains voting rights in the community mechanism
at a later stage, they
would receive an equal number of votes.<br>
<br>
-----<br>
<br>
The description of ALAC is simply not true.<br>
<br>
I refer everyone to the ICANN Bylaws, article X,
section 4(a), which
states:<br>
<br>
-----<br>
<br>
The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is the
primary organizational home
within ICANN for individual Internet users. The
role of the ALAC shall be
to consider and provide advice on the activities
of ICANN, insofar as
they relate to the interests of individual
Internet users. This includes
policies created through ICANN's Supporting
Organizations, as well as the
many other issues for which community input and
advice is appropriate.
The ALAC, which plays an important role in
ICANN's accountability
mechanisms, also coordinates some of ICANN's
outreach to individual
Internet users.<br>
<br>
----<br>
<br>
ALAC was structurally designed to “<i>consider
and provide
advice</i>” on the activities of ICANN,
insofar as they relate to the
interests of <i>individual Internet users</i>”.
It was NOT
“structurally designed to represent Internet
users within
ICANN”.<br>
<br>
Two inaccuracies:<br>
<br>
1. ALAC was designed with to be the home of <i>individual
</i>Internet
users. Many Internet users are not individuals.
ALAC was not
“structurally designed” to be the “home” of any
of them, it’s
structural remit being limited to individual
Internet users;<br>
<br>
2. ALAC was not “structurally designed” to
represent anyone. It was
“structurally designed” to “consider and provide
advice” to ICANN
on behalf of individual Internet users.<br>
<br>
To help illustrate the difference, I would refer
you to section 1.1 of
the Board approved Non-Commercial Stakeholder
group Charter, which
reads:<br>
<br>
----<br>
<br>
The purpose of the Non Commercial Stakeholder
Group (NCSG) is to
<i>represent</i>, through its elected
representatives and its
Constituencies, the interests and concerns of
non-commercial registrants
and non-commercial Internet users of generic
Top-Level domains.<br>
<br>
---<br>
<br>
The NCSG was designed to have a representative
function. It is accurate
to state that the NCSG was “structurally
designed” to
<i>represent</i> both non-commercial registrants
and non-commercial
Internet users of generic Top-Level domains with
ICANN. The same remit
for it’s designated community cannot be
attributed to ALAC.<br>
<br>
As an advisory committee ALAC does not have the
same functional design as
the NCSG, a constituent part of the GNSO, in
terms of
representation at ICANN. ALAC’s function is to
“consider and provide
advice”. The NCSG’s function is to “represent”.
They are
different.<br>
<br>
We need to be accurate in the information we put
in the document we are
creating for public comment. As has happened
here, members of the
community will pick up on inaccuracies and that
will lead to credibility
problems for our entire effort.<br>
<br>
I suggest that the following language be
substituted in document
52A:<br>
<br>
---<br>
<br>
The community mechanism gives the bulk of
influence on an equal basis
between the three SOs for which ICANN deals with
policy development and
the At-Large Advisory Committee (which was
structurally designed to
<i>consider and provide advice on behalf of
individual </i>Internet users
within ICANN). If a new SO or another AC gains
voting rights in the
community mechanism at a later stage, they would
receive an equal number
of votes.<br>
<br>
---<br>
<br>
I will note that this proposed language has been
taken directly from the
ICANN bylaws, modified only by a joining clause.
It is accurate. The
previous language was not.<br>
<br>
I recognize that accuracy in description might
cause some to question the
appropriate role of some groups going forward.
If so, it might be a
conversation we need to have. At the moment,
though, I’m just trying to
make sure our documentation reflects reality
rather than aspiration.<br>
<br>
Thanks for considering,<br>
<br>
Ed<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<hr>
<b>From</b>: "Jordan Carter"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>
><br>
<b>Sent</b>: Sunday, July 26, 2015 6:30 AM<br>
<b>To</b>: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wp1@icann.org">wp1@icann.org</a>,
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject</b>: [CCWG-ACCT] Revised draft -
Voting weights in community
mechanism <br>
<br>
Hi everyone <br>
<br>
Here is an update of the previously not-updated
text on voting weights. I
am sorry that I haven’t got tracked changes to
show you - it’s not
much changed from what was circulated a few days
ago (the redline staff
draft that hadn’t actually been finished).<br>
<br>
We still need to develop quorum and
participation rules - I believe
Bernie is working on a paper on this, for
discussion next week.<br>
<br>
This is on the agenda for WP1 on 27 July.<br>
<br>
best<br>
Jordan<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Jordan Carter<br>
<br>
Chief Executive <br>
<b>InternetNZ</b><br>
<br>
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>
<br>
Skype: jordancarter<br>
<br>
<i>To promote the Internet's benefits and uses,
and protect its
potential.<br>
</i>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
WP1 mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:WP1@icann.org">WP1@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1"
eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1</a></blockquote>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
WP1 mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:WP1@icann.org">WP1@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
</pre>
</body>
</html>