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

Thu Apr 16 16:05:49 UTC 2015

As do I. I'd still like to stick with consensus wherever possible,  but where voting is needed best to stick with what we have than to open up the hornets nest of vote distribution. 

Ed

Sent from my iPad

> On Apr 16, 2015, at 4:49 PM, <olivier.muron at orange.com> <olivier.muron at orange.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> I fully agree with Robin : the new body created, whatever form it will take, should have a balance of power as close as possible to that of the Board. Doing very differently, may cause difficulties and instability.
> Best,
> Olivier
> De : wp1-bounces at icann.org [mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org] De la part de Jordan Carter
> Envoyé : mercredi, avril 15, 2015 22:23
> À : Steve Crocker
> Cc : wp1 at icann.org
> Objet : Re: [WP1] V3 of First Public Comment Document input -- for WP1 call #10
>  
> 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 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> 
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150416/824b2653/attachment-0001.html>