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

Fri Jul 31 22:29:01 UTC 2015

Thanks all for these clarifications. They'll be in the version that goes
out.

J

On 1 August 2015 at 07:40, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:

> Thanks Greg, this makes sense to me.
>
> Best,
> Keith
>
>
>
> On Jul 31, 2015, at 3:37 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
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/20150801/f1950199/attachment-0001.html>