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

Mon Nov 2 15:13:44 UTC 2015

I still don't see how "one group, one vote" is consensus, much less a
consensus process. Having a "vote no" veto doesn't save this from being a
vote.

One positive side effect of this process, if adopted, might be forcing the
GNSO to come up with a consensus process for decision making at the SO
level without convening a Working Group.

Greg

On Monday, November 2, 2015, Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz at erst.dk> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I would like to support Jorge with regard to the escalation process and
> not establishing a split vote system. Most importantly the underlying
> purpose of the escalation process is that the community has an incentive to
> compromise and reach consensus, and gives the community an incentive for
> the community to actually resolve the issues before an eventual community
> decision to exercise a community power. Although, we still have more work
> to do regarding the details, I believe this approach, which was carefully
> drafted in Dublin, is balanced and a split voting system would not to the
> same extent support the community in reaching compromises and solutions.
>
> Best
>
> Julia
>
>
>
> Julia Katja Wolman
>
> DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
>
> Dahlerups Pakhus
> Langelinie Allé 17
> DK-2100 København Ø
> Telephone: +45 3529 1000
> Direct: +45 35291308
> E-mail: jukacz at erst.dk <javascript:;>
> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk
>
> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
>
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: wp1-bounces at icann.org <javascript:;> [mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:;>] På vegne af Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <javascript:;>
> Sendt: 31. oktober 2015 06:18
> Til: sdelbianco at netchoice.org <javascript:;>
> Cc: acct-staff at icann.org <javascript:;>; wp1 at icann.org <javascript:;>
> Emne: Re: [WP1] Homework from WP1 call on Fri 30-Oct
>
> 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
> <javascript:;><mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org <javascript:;>>>:
>
> 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 <javascript:;><mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:;>>> on behalf of Jordan Carter
> Date: Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:06 AM
> To: "wp1 at icann.org <javascript:;><mailto:wp1 at icann.org <javascript:;>>"
> 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 <javascript:;><mailto:
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz <javascript:;>>
> 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 <javascript:;><mailto:WP1 at icann.org <javascript:;>>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org <javascript:;>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20151102/5404ddb5/attachment-0001.html>