[WP1] V3 of First Public Comment Document input -- for WP1 call #10

[Jordan Carter]

If we have any designator or member concept at all, we have to allocate
influence in that scheme. There is no way around it.

If we find another way to do this in terms of the "how", we will still need
to allocate decision rights to the powers set out, and within that, the
relative weight between parts of the community too.

cheers
Jordan

On 16 April 2015 at 08:10, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:

> Robin,
>
> Currently, the SOs each provide two voting members of the ICANN Board,
> ALAC provides one, and the Nomcom provides eight.  The CEO is also a voting
> member of the Board.
>
> The IETF, GAC, RSSAC and SSAC each have one non-voting liaison on the
> Board.
>
> I'm not sure how to translate all of this into the membership structure
> you're discussing, and it's even less clear how to do so in a way that
> preserves the balance of power.  Since the ACs, with the exception of ALAC,
> have no voting power at all on the Board...
>
> As a separate matter, I think the idea of parcelling out voting interests
> to competing constituencies is an absolutely terrible way to structure
> things, but that opens up a much larger discussion.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> On Apr 15, 2015, at 3:31 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks very much, Jordan.  I've started to review the new drafts.  One
> important concern I have is in Section 6.5.1 on this suggestion:
>   "To ensure there is (as far as possible) an equality of voting
> power/representation between the three SOs, the GAC, and At-Large, with
> lesser but present/representation for SSAC and RSSAC."
>
> I believe we should not try to alter the existing voting power /
> representation that exists today, as represented in ICANN's board of
> directors, the ultimate decisional authority for the organization.  So we
> should use the board's representational ratio as the basis for our work.
> It would not be appropriate for the ICANN accountability reform effort to
> alter the existing relationship balance between those entities.  Presently
> on ICANN's board, SO's have double weight to the ACs, so I propose we do
> not alter that balance and stick to it in our work.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> On Apr 15, 2015, at 3:30 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> Please find attached the following documents:
>
> - v3 of our public comment content, in PDF and .docx
> - a redline tracked changes compared with V2, in PDF and .docx
>
> *ICANN staff *- please put these docs on the Wiki asap, and circulate the
> links.
>
> *Please note - I have used Word to do this, and the document is not based
> on the Google document. Any comments on that document have, unfortunately,
> not been taken into account. Please advise ASAP if there are comments for
> me to take into account there.*
>
> thanks,
> Jordan
>
>
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Skype: jordancarter
>
> *A better world through a better Internet *
>
>  <2015-04-15-CCWG-ACCT-WP1-firstcommentreport-content-v3.docx>
> <2015-04-15-CCWG-ACCT-WP1-firstcommentreport-content-v3.pdf><MARK UP -
> SHOWS CHANGES V3 compared with V2.docx><MARK UP - SHOWS CHANGES V3
> compared with V2.pdf>_______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
>
>


-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ*

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter

*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150416/16f824b6/attachment-0001.html>