[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. 
>I’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