<html>
<body>
The ALAC was not originally created to exercise the powers we are now
describing. NEITHER WAS THE GNSO, THE ccNSO OR THE ASO. They were created
to recommend policy in their respective domains.<br><br>
Everything we are doing here is new and perhaps we do need to alter the
Bylaw description of the units (I don't think so...).<br><br>
But quoting what is in the current Bylaws will simply certify that we do
not have the powers that we now say we need.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 26/07/2015 09:10 PM, Edward Morris wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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"
<jordan@internetnz.net.nz><br>
<b>Sent</b>: Sunday, July 26, 2015 6:30 AM<br>
<b>To</b>: wp1@icann.org, accountability-cross-community@icann.org<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 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>
WP1 mailing list<br>
WP1@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1</a></blockquote></body>
</html>