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

Jordan Carter jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Mon Jul 27 03:43:03 UTC 2015


Hi everyone

We did have a great chance to discuss the voting weights question in our
two days of face to face time in Paris a week or so ago.

This issue of representation was scoped out in our first PC report, which
you'll recall had:

Five votes each for:
- ASO
- ccNSO
- GNSO
- GAC
- At Large

Two votes each for:
- RSSAC
- SSAC

We have clear advice that the last-mentioned ACs do not want to participate
at this time, and I have an impression that GAC is still discussing its
participation.

[We are, by the by, going to have to set out how the remaining ACs will be
able to opt in at a future point, presumably on the same basis in terms of
# of votes as set out above.]

In the public comments that came in on the voting weights, there was no
overwhelming feedback to suggest that the ALAC numbers were a problem.

How can we workably get this matter resolved?

What is a compromise that can be lived with - is a referral of this
question to WS2 in a suitable way possible?

I don't think we should leave the matter of votes open, and I don't think
we should provide options again. We did that last time, and the feedback
was happy enough with what we had proposed.

Robin, Ed, Arun, Alan, all:

what can we do to get this working?


cheers
Jordan




On 27 July 2015 at 15:25, Arun Sukumar <arun.sukumar at nludelhi.ac.in> wrote:

> Agree with Robin and Ed on the issue of equal representation to ALAC. If
> at-large is designed to represent internet users, are we really suggesting
> that 5 votes will do justice to the diversity of views in this wide
> constituency? ALAC, in my personal opinion, should remain an advisory
> entity.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On 27 Jul 2015, at 07:53, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
> 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" <jordan at internetnz.net.nz >
> *Sent*: Sunday, July 26, 2015 6:30 AM
> *To*: wp1 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)
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Skype: jordancarter
>
>
> *To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. *
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>  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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>


-- 
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 *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150727/d217077c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the WP1 mailing list