[WP1] [CCWG-ACCT] Revised draft - Voting weights in community mechanism

Mon Jul 27 02:23:43 UTC 2015

Robin, the ALAC and GAC have everything to do with the Public 
Interest, which is paramount in ICANN's mission.

Alan

At 26/07/2015 09:41 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>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.
>
>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.
>
>Thanks,
>Robin
>
>
>On Jul 26, 2015, at 6:10 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
>
>>Hi everybody,
>>
>>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:
>>
>>-----
>>
>>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 represent 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.
>>
>>-----
>>
>>The description of ALAC is simply not true.
>>
>>I refer everyone to the ICANN Bylaws, article X, section 4(a), which states:
>>
>>-----
>>
>>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.
>>
>>----
>>
>>ALAC was structurally designed to "consider and provide advice" on 
>>the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of 
>>individual Internet users". It was NOT  "structurally designed to 
>>represent Internet users within ICANN".
>>
>>Two inaccuracies:
>>
>>1. ALAC was designed with to be the home of individual 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;
>>
>>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.
>>
>>To help illustrate the difference, I would refer you to section 1.1 
>>of the Board approved Non-Commercial Stakeholder group Charter, which reads:
>>
>>----
>>
>>The purpose of the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) is to 
>>represent, 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.
>>
>>---
>>
>>The NCSG was designed to have a representative function. It is 
>>accurate to state that the NCSG was "structurally designed" to 
>>represent 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.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>I suggest that the following language be substituted in document 52A:
>>
>>---
>>
>>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 consider and provide advice on behalf of 
>>individual 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.
>>
>>---
>>
>>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.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>Thanks for considering,
>>
>>Ed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----------
>>From: "Jordan Carter" 
>><<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>>Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 6:30 AM
>>To: <mailto:wp1 at icann.org>wp1 at icann.org, 
>><mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Revised draft - Voting weights in community mechanism
>>
>>Hi everyone
>>
>>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).
>>
>>We still need to develop quorum and participation rules - I believe 
>>Bernie is working on a paper on this, for discussion next week.
>>
>>This is on the agenda for WP1 on 27 July.
>>
>>best
>>Jordan
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Jordan Carter
>>
>>Chief Executive
>>InternetNZ
>>
>>04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
>><mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>>Skype: jordancarter
>>
>>To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>>_______________________________________________
>>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20150726/8b378019/attachment.html>