[WP1] Homework from WP1 call on Fri 30-Oct
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Mon Nov 2 01:04:41 UTC 2015
Hi,
I want to repeat what I have said may times before: The issues we are
talking about when we talk about the community powers are much larger
than the GNSO and its micro subdivisions and in fact have little to do
with its particular policy making area. To map the community powers to
the policy structure makes no sense and only a minority seems to think
it does.
I do not understand why we are walking away from consensus based
position we had reached that allowed us to finish our work in some
predictable. This path down the rat hole has lead us to a dead end
before. What makes anyone think we will not be repeating that?
avri
On 02-Nov-15 09:51, Greg Shatan wrote:
> I have continuing concerns at the overall level (this does not
> describe a consensus process) and specifically as regards the view of
> the GNSO (the GNSO does not have a process for consensus decision
> making; the process fails to recognize that the GNSO is an
> organization for gTLD policy-making (and the GNSO Council is a policy
> management body), and that for any other purpose the groups
> participating in the GNSO represent discrete stakeholder
> communities). Nothing I've read or heard has resolved these concerns.
>
> However, whether we view this as a consensus process or a proto-voting
> process, I'm still grappling with the "weighting" issue (which in turn
> leads to the "fractional" or "splitting" issue).
>
> In order to visualize the relative weights under 3 different
> scenarios, I prepared 3 pie charts, which I've put in the attached
> document. (Note that this reflects my concern that the stakeholder
> communities participating in the GNSO should be viewed separately for
> purposes other then gTLD policy-making. Note also that I've assumed
> that any "ccNSO" participation would need to take into account
> non-ccNSO ccTLDs, so I've reflected that in the pie chart labeling.)
> Apologies for some "rounding errors" (literally); but these do not
> affect the substance. Use these charts as you see fit.... I'm happy
> to revise, or prepare other charts, if need be.
>
> Greg
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>
> Resending as some had a problem reading the file. - Robin
>
>
>
> On Oct 30, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Steve.
>>
>> All, attached is an exploration of the option to provide 4 units
>> to ASO, CCNSO, and GNSO + 2 units to ALAC, as mirrored on the
>> existing board structure. The threshold percentages were taken
>> from the 2nd draft proposal, and then just transposed into a pool
>> of 14 weighted fractional units. Suggestions for improvements
>> and comments on this proposal are much appreciated. (My
>> additions are the comments in pink color in the attached document).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> <alternative weights in Community Mechanism.docx>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
>>
>>> 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 <tel:%2B64-4-495-2118> (office) | +64-21-442-649
>>> <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (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 <mailto:WP1 at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
More information about the WP1
mailing list