[WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Jul 27 14:39:59 UTC 2015
Greg, I thought one of the ground rules was that
other than saying that votes cast must be actual
decisions of the AC/SO, that we would not delve
into their decision process for how to allocate
votes and certainly not on how to allocates voices.
Alan
At 27/07/2015 12:36 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>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 enssure 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
><<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>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" <<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 2:07 AM
>To: "Edward Morris" <<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>egmorris1 at toast.net>
>Cc: "James Gannon"
><<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>james at cyberinvasion.net>,
>"Alan Greenberg"
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>,
>"Drazek, Keith"
><<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>kdrazek at verisign.com>,
>"Jordan Carter"
><<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>jordan at internetnz.net.nz>,
>"<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>wp1 at icann.org"
><<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>wp1 at icann.org>,
>"Accountability Cross Community"
><<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>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
><<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>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" <<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>james at cyberinvasion.net>
>Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 9:14 AM
>To: "Alan Greenberg"
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>,
>"Drazek, Keith"
><<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>kdrazek at verisign.com>,
>"Jordan Carter"
><<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>jordan at internetnz.net.nz>,
>"<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>wp1 at icann.org"
><<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>wp1 at icann.org>,
>"Accountability Cross Community"
><<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>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 presencee 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:
><mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org>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;
><mailto:wp1 at icann.org>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.
>Iââ¬ve made a few proposed red-lined edits in
>the attached, supportted by comments. Happy to discuss further.
>
>Regards,
>Keith
>
>From:
><mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org>wp1-bounces at icann.org
>[ mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter
>Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 10:57 PM
>To: <mailto:wp1 at icann.org>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) | <tel:%2B64-21-442-649>+64-21-442-649 (mob)
>Email: <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>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
><mailto:WP1 at icann.org>WP1 at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WP1 mailing list
><mailto:WP1 at icann.org>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/20150727/2cbdcdf1/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the WP1
mailing list