[WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

[Greg Shatan]

Ed,

Thanks for the explanation (and the kind words).

I think we still have a significant problem here, based on the language in
the document (and spurred on by your explanation).

First, the language:

*Each ICANN SO or AC* would be asked to nominate between one and seven [or
eight] 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.  [emphasis added]

The language in red is insufficient to accomplish the objective it states
-- to *ensure* a presence from each part of the community.  The mere fact
that we give each SO and AC the opportunity to pick a number of
representatives in no way "ensures" that there will be a presence from each
part of the community.  A given SO or AC could choose to have fewer
representatives than "each part" of that community, or it could choose a
larger number but still not distribute seats so that "each part" of the
community is present.  For instance, the ALAC could choose to have 3
representatives (even though there are 5 RALOs) or they could choose to
have 8 representatives and give 2 each to 4 RALOs and none to the 5th.  It
would be easy for a majority of any SO or AC to squeeze out a minority.
This would not violate the letter of this language, even though it would
violate the spirit.

Your explanation of why 8 was a good number for the GNSO specifically gave
me pause: "Eight is easily divisible by two, the number of GNSO houses, and
four, the number of GNSO stakeholder groups."  This is a textbook example
of the problem, for the simple reason that the 3 Constituencies that
comprise the CSG are not divisible by 2. If only two seats are allocated to
these 3 groups, one will be frozen out and will not be present.  Any
"community assembly" where one or more of these constituencies cannot be
present fails to meet the most basic test for inclusion and thus fails as
an organization.

In order to avoid this outcome, whether in the GNSO, the ALAC or otherwise,
the paragraph excerpted above must be modified as follows (text in red
added):

*Each ICANN SO or AC* would be asked to nominate between one and seven [or
eight] people to participate in the ICA. *Each ICANN SO or AC shall
nominate at least one person from each formal part of that SO or AC wishing
to be represented* -- 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.

On a related note, I wouldn't hold my breath on GNSO structural reform....
I expect it will come eventually, but we need to plan for what is, not for
what if.

Greg

On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

> Greg,
>
> You were missed in Paris. I certainly hope if you decide to be part of the
> ICA you will be funded. The contribution you've made to our accountability
> effort and within the GNSO are almost beyond measure.
>
> Eight is easily divisible by two, the number of GNSO houses, and four, the
> number of GNSO stakeholder groups. I would have been happy with one (we'd
> all have to work together to select the one), two, four, sixteen etc. I
> actually think eight is a pretty good number. It allows for enough
> diversity yet is small enough to work with.
>
> I'll be up front and recognise there are a number of proposals floating
> around for GNSO structural reform. I hope there are some we agree on, I
> presume there are some we don't. We don't know the future but we do know
> the present. Hopefully eight gives us enough to work with regardless of the
> direction we go in.
>
> I hope this was helpful but should note this was my reasoning only. I was
> not involved in the selection of the number presented. I did signal my
> approval, though, of the work done by others on this matter for the reasons
> indicated. As I said then, for the reasons indicated, "good job".
>
> Best,
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> *Sent*: Monday, July 27, 2015 2:07 AM
> *To*: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net>
> *Cc*: "James Gannon" <james at cyberinvasion.net>, "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
>
>  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/20150727/123fbf9a/attachment-0001.html>