<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Sans-Serif; font-size: 12px"><div>Hi all,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks for responding to our concerns about the ability of Board appointees to block the communities ability to remove Board members. It was pretty obvious once you examined the proposal as is the political reality that giving any voting power to the United States military, through it's 3/12 member representation at RSSAC, is going to cause problems. You guys are under such time pressure mistakes are going to happen and the consequences of actions may not always be readily apparent. I don't blame you: there is no Dummies guide to restructuring a major international corporation in 7 months or less. Writing such a book just might be a wise career choice once you wrap up this project. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I hope you in good faith are not going to try to claim that there is consensus for the 5 X2 model. Just so that illusion is busted I oppose that model for the 1) inclusion of the U.S. military as a voting member through RSSAC, 2) an unwarranted change of the power balance and functions of the respective SOAC's when compared to current voting arrangements, which violates the CCWG policy published in the legal scoping document of 19 March 2015 , a consensus policy whose reversal has not been discussed or approved by the group, 3) the lack of safeguard against capture through coordinated manipulation taking advantage of the possibility of parties to simultaneously belong to multiple SO's and AC's, 4) problems of double dipping per number 3 which violate the principle of one person / one party one vote which is customary international law and required by ICANN through it's Bylaws commitment to adhere to international law...plus likely a number of other problems that neither of us have thought of given the rushed nature of things. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I sadly will not be on the calls later today due to pre-existing work commitments and the last minute scheduling of the calls.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I would respectfully request that if you are going to go ahead with putting the 5 X 2 proposal in the public comment materials you truthfully and transparency note that this proposal was a last minute substitute for a proposal that was deemed inadequate. I understand that this was our previous proposal but we don't know what the response would have been had we not ditched it. I agree with Keith that we will need to discuss all of this again once the public comments are received.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>With regards to the minority reports I appreciate the situation you are in. I do not, however, accept the explanation offered by Thomas that minority reports will be accepted later but just won't make the publication. I'm not a big fan of separate but equal. Minority views not in the initial published report are at a distinct disadvantage in terms of public receipt and review. We all know this. Let's stop pretending. You are good guys but you're starting to act like those we want to hold accountable. I know you really don't want to set the precedent of shorting minority rights. Thomas, as our GNSO representative I am informing you that there are at least two groups of GNSO members who are preparing minority reports but do not believe they can get it done by noon tomorrow. If you can't do anything, fine, but be please be prepared to explain it to them at the next Council meeting. I've tried but they are not accepting my explanations and, frankly, I don't blame them.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks for considering, thanks for your hard work and good luck on the calls later today.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Edward Morris</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" />
<div><span style="font-family: tahoma,arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><b>From</b>: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@verisign.com><br />
<b>Sent</b>: Thursday, July 30, 2015 12:11 AM<br />
<b>To</b>: "Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org><br />
<b>Subject</b>: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Voting weights in community mechanism</span>
<div> </div>
Thanks to the Co-Chairs for this message.<br />
<br />
I agree that the best approach at this time is to revert to the 5x5 and 2X2 reference model included in our first proposal. It received support and we obviously don't have consensus on a replacement model. We'll continue to discuss and debate the issue of vote distribution, but I suggest we'd be better off doing so AFTER we receive community feedback from the upcoming public comment period.<br />
<br />
Regards,<br />
Keith<br />
<br />
-----Original Message-----<br />
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill<br />
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 9:37 PM<br />
To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<br />
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Voting weights in community mechanism<br />
<br />
Dear Colleagues,<br />
<br />
You will remember that our Initial Report Reference Model on voting weights was 5 votes for ccNSO, gNSO, ASO, ALAC and GAC, 2 for SSAC and RSSAC. During the public comment period, we have received some comments (largely debated since on the list) with regards to the respective number of votes of gNSO and ALAC, and these are well noted.<br />
<br />
During our call on Tuesday we discussed the voting weight section of the community mechanism proposal and asked for WP1 to refine its proposal accordingly. The topic was then discussed again during the WP1 call that followed a few hours later. WP1 agreed to submit to our group a proposal with 5 votes for each SO or AC, pending intentions from GAC, SSAC and RSSAC to joint the mechanism as voting members. (see latest doc here :<br />
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888421/5A2-Community-Mechanism-Voting-PenultimateDraft.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1438079125000&api=v2)<br />
<br />
A concern has come to our attention with this latest, new, proposal. If SSAC and RSSAC have 10 votes out of 35, they could jointly block a Board recall (75% votes required, 27 votes). Since they are both composed of individuals appointed by the Board, some may question their independence in case such a power is triggered. This could raise concerns of conflicts of interest.<br />
<br />
We discussed this between co-chairs and with Jordan as WP1 rapporteurs, and as a consequence would like to suggest we go back to the initial Reference model (5x5 and 2x2 votes) as a basis for our public comment document.<br />
<br />
This proposal will be on our agenda for Thursday's calls but we wanted to provide this heads-up in advance in order to facilitate an informed discussion.<br />
<br />
Best regards,<br />
Thomas, Leon & Mathieu<br />
Co-chairs<br />
<br />
_______________________________________________<br />
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br />
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br />
_______________________________________________<br />
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br />
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br />
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br />
</div></span>