[WP1] [CCWG-ACCT] Update to 5A.2 on Voting Weights

Fri Jul 31 19:36:29 UTC 2015

Robin and All,

I've gone back and re-read Section 5A (Community Mechanism As Sole Member
Model).  In this Section 5A.2, we are only discussing voting in the
Community Mechanism.  There is no discussion or participation (robust or
otherwise) in the Community Mechanism; just votes.  Thus there are no
liaisons or advisors in the Community Mechanism.  As such the language
expressing this third model is inaccurate.

The discussion and participation takes place in the Community Forum, prior
to the SO/AC's deciding how to cast their votes.  The Community Forum is
described in Section 5A.3, and there is no mention in there of "liaison" OR
"advisory" status.  As stated there"

Importantly, it would also create an opportunity for Advisory Committees
that aren’t currently participating in the Community Mechanism to offer
their insight, advice and recommendations on the proposed exercise of a
community power.

That said, we could modify the language like this:

A third [minority] view is that there should be four votes each for the
ASO, ccNSO and GNSO, and two votes for ALAC.  The GAC, the SSAC and the
RSSAC would participate fully in discussions in the Community Forum (5A.3)
but would not vote in the Community Mechanism.

I also think this title ("Influence in the Community Mechanism") is
misleading.  "Influence" is far too broad a word.  Let's just call it
"Voting in the Community Mechanism."

I've said before that we needed to clarify the relationship between the
Community Forum and the Community Mechanism, and we haven't really done
so.  This confusion is the fruit of that lack of clarity.

Greg

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> This would not be an acceptable alteration of the proposal as it does not
> reflect the roles assigned to the various parts of the community, neither
> in the existing board composition nor in this proposal.
>
> There are many people in this group who are not Members and therefore have
> no vote, technically.  However they are still able to drive the discussion
> with their robust participation in the process.  So simply saying they have
> no votes, leaves out the entire point of their contribution, including its
> role, which is the key point the proposal tries to make.
>
> Robin
>
>
> On Jul 31, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>
> In the Proposal text relating to Robin's proposal, the roles for GAC, SSAC
> and RSSAC is described as a "liaison" role.  In Robin's email, it is
> referred to as an "advisory" role.  Since we are only talking about the
> voting phase, and not the petition or discussion phase, it's likely that
> neither word is accurate.  In the voting phase, these are simply
> non-participants.  I would suggest the language read as follows:
>
> A third [minority] view is that there should be four votes each for the
> ASO, ccNSO and GNSO, two votes for ALAC and no votes for the GAC, the SSAC
> and the RSSAC.
>
> This narrowly deals with the issue at hand.
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I accidentally left out GAC as an "Advisory" role in the text
>> below.  So the votes in the board composition model would be:
>>
>>  4 votes for GNSO, CCNSO, ASO
>>  2 votes for ALAC
>>  Advisory roles for *GAC*, SSAC and RSSAC
>>
>>
>> Apologies for any confusion.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Jordan, I appreciate your willingness to include diverse
>> viewpoints in the report.  However, the proposal for the voting weights is
>> somewhat mis-stated in this draft.  The proposal to model the board
>> composition for voting weights is for a *ratio* of votes, not for an exact
>> number of votes.
>>
>> If we are to list these proposals as exact number of votes proposed,
>> then, for consistency sake, please note that my proposal for the weighted
>> votes would be:
>>  4 votes for GNSO, CCNSO, ASO
>>  2 votes for ALAC
>>  Advisory roles for SSAC and RSSAC
>>
>> While it is the board composition *ratio* I am proposing to use as our
>> model (2 votes for GNSO, CCNSO, ASO; 1 vote for ALAC; Advisory Roles for
>> SSAC, RSSAC), the actual number of votes would be larger to reflect the
>> diversity of views within the various constituent parts.
>>
>> I hope the draft can be updated to correctly reflect that my proposal was
>> for a *ratio* of votes (not actual number of votes) in the community
>> mechanism.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> On Jul 30, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>> Attached please find mark ups showing update on the voting weights part
>> of 5A based on the discussion at this forty-seventh CCWG meeting.
>>
>> Comments etc welcome, preferably on the main CCWG list.
>>
>> 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 *
>>
>> <5A2-CommMech-VOTING-INFLUENCE-after-CCWG-47.docx>
>> <5A2-CommMech-VOTING-INFLUENCE-after-CCWG-47.pdf>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150731/7b8b184e/attachment-0001.html>