[WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

[Greg Shatan]

Edward,

Sorry if I missed this conversation in Paris (since I didn't have the
funding to get to Paris), but can you explain how 8 is the number that
works best for the GNSO?  Thanks!

Greg

On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

> Hi James,
>
> Thanks for picking up on this. Indeed, we did agree on having  up to eight
> representatives per SO/AC on the ICA. I liked that idea so much I gave a
> "good job" oral compliment to Alan and Steve in Paris for agreeing
> this number, one that best works for the GNSO. After all, the "5"
> we've agreed to for voting does not work well for us in the GNSO but we in
> the GNSO compromised there to help other communities. It was nice to see
> some reciprocity.  I'm sure the number "7" is just an oversight that we can
> correct before we put this document out for public comment.
>
> I believe in a robust, diverse and representative ICA. Hopefully we won't
> have to exercise the community powers very often but when we do I want the
> entire community to be represented in all it's multifaceted grandeur. One
> provision in our proposal would tend to discourage that: the level of
> support proposed for ICA members.
>
> I'd like to propose that we extend funding to all ICA nominees, not just
> the 5 voting members per group. I believe people think the CCWG funding
> methodology, which our proposal copies, has worked: it has not, at least
> not for those of us in the noncommercial community. I can tell you stories
> of our Istanbul meeting where I had to walk  for a half hour each night
> following our meetings  through a red light district to get to my bed in a
> youth hostel. I'm not a youth but our NCUC budget, from which I received
> support for the meeting, is not large. My post midnight walk on day one
>  (the legal subteam worked until close to midnight the first night) was
> particularly interesting.
>
> I should note the difficulty our supported Member to the CCWG has had in
> getting to the CCWG meetings. For Istanbul, Robin had a flight cancellation
> and was unable to rebook in time to attend. For Paris her initial flight
> had mechanical problems and she arrived after an overnight flight and
> during our Friday morning meeting. We should learn two things from her
> story: 1) never book a flight Robin is on; it's just bad luck.  :) and 2)
> relying upon one person to present a point of view of an entire component
> of our community at a meeting is not wise. With the serious nature of the
> issues the ICA will be considering all voices must be heard.
>
> I should note it's not just noncommercial participants who may be
> experiencing funding problems in this regard. I've spoken to multiple
> commercial colleagues whose companies commitment will be reduced following
> the ACCT project. We need to ensure maximum participation in the ICA for
> this proposal to be guaranteed the diversity of views and backgrounds this
> entire construct needs if it is to be considered legitimate by all segments
> of society.
>
> In summary: 1) We need to correct the number of ICA participants per group
> so that it reflects the maximum of "8" which, as James has pointed out, was
> the agreed position in Paris, and 2) in the interests of diversity and to
> ensure all voices are heard we need to support all members of the ICA, not
> just a select few. A two tiered nominee system should not be favoured.
>
> In terms of budgetary impact costs can be trimmed elsewhere if need be. It
> makes no sense to provide full support, for example, to SO Council members
> and not to those nominees who will be participating in our highest
> deliberative, albeit nonvoting, body.
>
> Thanks for considering,
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: "James Gannon" <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> *Sent*: Sunday, July 26, 2015 9:14 AM
> *To*: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, "Drazek, Keith" <
> kdrazek at verisign.com>, "Jordan Carter" <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>, "
> wp1 at icann.org" <wp1 at icann.org>, "Accountability Cross Community" <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject*: Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly
>
>
> a)    *Each ICANN SO or AC* would be asked to nominate between one and
> seven people to participate in the ICA – this is to ensure that there is
> at least some presence from each part of the community in the ICA, and some
> likelihood that its activities and discussions will include a wide range of
> perspectives.
>
>
>
> I assume the 7 is a holdover from a previous version? It was very clearly
> agreed to be 8 in Paris.
>
>
>
> -James Gannon
>
>
>
> *From:* wp1-bounces at icann.org [mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Alan Greenberg
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 25, 2015 7:55 PM
> *To:* Drazek, Keith; Jordan Carter; wp1 at icann.org; Accountability Cross
> Community
>
> *Subject:* Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly
>
>
>
> And a bunch of comments from me.
>
> Alan
>
> At 25/07/2015 09:03 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Jordan, this looks very good to me. I’ve made a few proposed
> red-lined edits in the attached, supported by comments. Happy to discuss
> further.
>
> Regards,
> Keith
>
> *From:* wp1-bounces at icann.org [ mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org
> <wp1-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter
> *Sent:* Friday, July 24, 2015 10:57 PM
> *To:* wp1 at icann.org; Accountability Cross Community
> *Subject:* [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly
>
> Hi all
>
> I have taken the draft material from an older paper about the ICANN
> Community Assembly and pulled it into one place.
>
> Please see attached and debate away!  I've tried to be clear on its solely
> advisory nature, and have suggested that this would be the forum to use for
> the Public Accountability Forum suggestion made by advisors a while ago.
>
>
> best,
> Jordan
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
> +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Skype: jordancarter
>
> *A better world through a better Internet *
>
> Content-Type:
> application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document;
>          name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly -
> v1.doc DRAZEK"
>  Comments.docx"
> Content-Description: 5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly -
>  v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.docx
> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="5A3 - Community Mechanism -
> ICANN"
>  Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.docx"; size=32221;
>          creation-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:37 GMT";
>          modification-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:03:13 GMT"
>
> Content-Type: application/pdf; name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN"
>  Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf"
> Content-Description: 5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly -
>  v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf
> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="5A3 - Community Mechanism -
> ICANN"
>  Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf"; size=24126;
>          creation-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:46 GMT";
>          modification-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:51 GMT"
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150726/237bc0fd/attachment.html>