[WP1] Homework from WP1 call on Fri 30-Oct

Sun Nov 1 08:17:07 UTC 2015

Dear all,

Thank you very much for all your valuable efforts and kind works

here we have certain difficulties which were raised several times at CCWG
and WP1 calls and not yet resolved.

It seems that at least two persons do not WISH TO LISTEN to the concerns.

These are my concerns

   1.

   In the table attached reference is made to 4  or 3 in favour  and 1 or 2
   against a given power to be exercised .This is a voting procedure whether
   you cover it under the heading of “ consensus “ or not .Consequently , you
   need to find different language/ expression to remove any direct or
   indirect interpretation / misunderstanding that a) there would be some sort
   of voting and b) it is intended that ACs , in particular ,would  act
   different than  those currently practicing .e.g. GAC has clearly
   expressed that it would prefer to remain advisory ,minimum actions as carry
    till now

   2.

   Having dealt with 4 or 3 in favour and 1 or 2 against assumed that out
   of 7SOs and ACs only five participation ( either decided to participate or
   have not pronounced their decisions) .This means that WP1 has concluded
   that SSAC  RSSAC have definitively decided not to participate at any
   decision making .Are you sure about that?

   3.

   Do those weighting factors 3 or 4 in favour and 2 or 1 against  exactly
   correspond to the threshold that were extensively discussed, debated for
   days and days or we have new threshold .

Best Regards

Kavouss

2015-10-31 6:18 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>:

> Dear all and dear Steve, and dear Jordan,
>
> Establishing a split vote system at the end of the escalation process is
> not just a mathematical operation.
>
> It radically changes the incentive structure for arriving at consensus.
> Both within each SO/AC and within the community as a whole.
>
> Within each SO/AC it reduces the incentives for compromising and seeking
> consensus on a common position. Every minority view knows it can play up to
> the end game and does not need to compromise. And the majority positions
> have little incentive to convince the minority as they can -without much
> discussion- gather, say 3 or 4 of the "votes".
>
> Minority views are much better served with a strong consensus requirement
> in each SO/AC. This forces factions to come together and agree on one
> position. And: minorities can voice their views (and try to convince other
> parts of the community) within the open and deliberative parts of the
> escalation mechanism (i.e. the community forum).
>
> After all nowadays each SO/AC has to arrive at common positions in the
> processes which presently exist (who, at the end of a policy process, wants
> to hear 5 different opinions from the GAC or from the ccNSO...?).
>
> Why should they not ne able to do the same at the very end of an
> escalation path which we designed in Dublin, whose objective is to strive
> for community-wide consensus on the exercise of community powers?
>
> This also impacts the rest of the SO/AC. They may want to continue with
> consensus decisions. If this is a general feeling and only one or two SO/AC
> seriously want "split voting", split voting should not be imposed on the
> rest of SO/AC. If this scheme is nevertheless imposed, it will act as a
> constant incentive within "former consensus" SO-AC to also split votes in
> the future.
>
> In addition, if no other SO/AC really wants "split voting" or only one or
> two SO/AC do, the whole exercise is meaningless. I mean: if the other five
> SO/AC stick to a "one position system", this should in any case be
> respected and no multiple votes assigned to that SO/AC. And in practical
> terms, that one or two of the SO/AC had in such an environment "split
> votes" would mean to add fractions (say 3/5 and 4/5, minus 2/5 and 1/5) at
> the end of the process to the "units" expressed by the SO/AC sticking to
> the "one voice system". Would that have any weight, apart from distorting
> the incentives for arriving at consensus?
>
> This would only be divisive and act as an incentive for not compromising.
>
> Please kindly consider these thoughts carefully, because we are not just
> doing some math. We would be altering the carefully crafted compromise of
> Dublin...
>
> regards
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>
> Am 30.10.2015 um 22:26 schrieb Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org
> <mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>>:
>
> Attached is my “homework” assignment today — reflecting split voting
> option for each AC/SO to decide  whether to exercise a community power.   I
> updated just the Appendix that Jordan circulated for today’s call, adding
> explanations and a new column on the decision table (also shown below).
>
> <Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png>
>
> From: <wp1-bounces at icann.org<mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of
> Jordan Carter
> Date: Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:06 AM
> To: "wp1 at icann.org<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>"
> Subject: [WP1] Pls Read - Agenda for Meeting - WP1 on Fri 30 October at
> 18h UTC
>
> Hi all
>
> Our call is on Friday from 18h UTC, and may last up to two hours.
>
> The proposed agenda items are as follows. PLEASE READ THIS AGENDA
> CAREFULLY as it sets out how I propose we run the meeting and the questions
> I propose we aim to answer.
>
> 1. Review of Agenda
>
> 2. Decision-making in the Community Mechanism
> This agenda item should look at decision-making, and seeing where the WP
> sits with key issues raised in the "Dublin Approach".
>
> To prepare for this item I suggest reading the following papers:
> - Community Decision-Making: The Dublin Approach Working Paper
> - Public Comment Analysis - Voting in the community mechanism
>
> If you have time, also have a look at the staff analysis of public
> comments - the "Model" and "Voting-Forum" tabs in particular.
>
> Papers attached or linked below. I have not updated the Dublin Approach
> paper, but kept the very valuable comments, and moved Robin's added issues
> into separate rows in the Issues Table.
>
> My suggestion is that we deal with the following specific questions, as
> they are the key changes in the model compared with what we presented in
> the Second Draft Proposal. We should for each question identify whether we
> have a consensus on them or whether we don't -- so we can advise the full
> CCWG of WP1's views.
>
> a) Do we support the decision-making model (by consensus) replacing the
> voting approach?
>
> b) Do we support only one view being expressed by each SO or AC?
>
> c) Do we support an equal say for each participating SO or AC?
>
>
> We also need to address the following:
>
> d) In our Third Draft Proposal, which SOs and ACs do we propose should be
> participating? that is, do we respect the SSAC's desire not to, and do we
> take a view re RSSAC?
>
> e) Based on our answer to d), do we need to make any changes to the
> numbers in the decision-making framework?
>
>
>
> 3. Other Work Required by WP1
> I do not have a current list of work we need to do in the next fortnight
> but believe this will be clearer following next week's CCWG. I welcome
> staff or co-chairs' input on this at this point of the WP1 agenda, and of
> course suggestions from WP1 participants.
>
> 4. Any Other Business
>
>
>
> Papers
>
> I attach PDFs of the Dublin Approach paper and of the Public Comment
> report section on voting.
>
> The Dublin paper Google Doc is at: <
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHZl_NvQ1WChatX8NT2Q1rQi4zQZgbrbAxrQSsH3tZQ/edit
> >
>
> The full WP1 Public Comment is at: <
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56142506/2015-10-12-CCWG-WP1-SecondPC-FullAnalysis.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1444644438000&api=v2
> >
>
> You may also find the staff analysis of Public Comments useful, which
> deals with voting specifically in a couple of the tabs (Model and
> Voting-Forum): <
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54693137/PC2%20tool%20-%2024%20SeptBTv2.xlsx?version=1&modificationDate=1443208173000&api=v2
> >
>
> cheers
> Jordan
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> InternetNZ
>
> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> Skype: jordancarter
> Web: www.internetnz.nz<http://www.internetnz.nz>
>
> A better world through a better Internet
>
> <Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png>
> <Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.pdf>
> <Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.docx>
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org<mailto: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/20151101/e1beae5c/attachment.html>