<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
James, all<br>
<br>
I have to say that the more that this conversation on voting in the
community mechanism persists the more I am convinced that the ACs
should remain in an advisory capacity (and the fact that the
weighting changed again yesterday is not encouraging). I also
suspect that uncertainty over whether or not certain ACs are going
to exercise their right to vote could be an unacceptable unknown in
an otherwise relatively solid proposal.<br>
<br>
Matthew<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/27/2015 3:19 PM, James M. Bladel
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:D1DBA760.87CFE%25jbladel@godaddy.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div>Hi Alan -</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don’t see the equivalency between ALAC and GAC on the issue
of Public Interest. Agree with Robin & ED that there is
significant overlap between ALAC and the NCSG, CSG, and even the
customers served by contracted parties, and that both ACs should
retain their “advisory” roles.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks—</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>J.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt;
text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none;
BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT:
0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid;
BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a></a>>
on behalf of Alan Greenberg <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Sunday, July 26,
2015 at 21:23 <br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Robin Gross <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a></a>>,
Edward Morris <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net">egmorris1@toast.net</a>>,
"<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:wp1@icann.org">wp1@icann.org</a>"
<<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>
Community" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re:
[CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Revised draft - Voting weights in community
mechanism<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>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="">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="">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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a></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">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a></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>
</div>
</div>
</span>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987</pre>
</body>
</html>