[WP1] Pls Read - Agenda for Meeting - WP1 on Fri 30 October at 18h UTC

Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Fri Oct 30 09:48:33 UTC 2015 

Dear all,

I'll try to join the call at 19UTC.

In any case, here are my comments to the questions posed:

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?


-          Yes. We strongly support this new approach.

b) Do we support only one view being expressed by each SO or AC?


-          I understand that the opinion (be it in form of a resolution or an advice) should point into one direction (support, rejection, silence)

c) Do we support an equal say for each participating SO or AC?
- I understand that an equal treatment has been the solution which during the different iterations has presented a larger degree of support.

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?


-          Strong incentives for the most wide participation should be maintained, as community decisions will only be legitimate if they represent a large majority (a consensus or near consensus) of the community as a whole. The escalation and consensus-building model have shown to garner the largest degree of support. We should be flexible in how we allow for the different SO/AC to express their views within the escalation process. No exclusions should be made beforehand.

==

Thanks in advance for taking these answers into consideration and regards

Jorge


Von: wp1-bounces at icann.org [mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Alan Greenberg
Gesendet: Freitag, 30. Oktober 2015 10:32
An: Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>; wp1 at icann.org
Betreff: Re: [WP1] Pls Read - Agenda for Meeting - WP1 on Fri 30 October at 18h UTC

I will not be able to join the call, but here are my answers.

I would request that soon after the meeting, a summary be sent out of what the outcome was for these questions. I will not have the time to review the MP3 but may want to comment on the overall results.

Alan

At 30/10/2015 12:06 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:

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?

YES. This was generally agreed to in Dublin. I support it in concept and would not want to start over again on another approach.



b) Do we support only one view being expressed by each SO or AC?

YES. Once we are committed to the consensus approach (as I believe we are), having a divided view per AC/SO breaks that model. Moreover, we are ALREADY using this approach to generate/support a petition, and even in our old voting model (as published in August), we used this approach to decide if the AC/SO was opted in.



c) Do we support an equal say for each participating SO or AC?

YES.




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?

The model we propose must be robust enough to accept additional AC/SOs in the future, even if it does not give the full details of how they will be factored in. If as Kavouss has suggested, advice against is treated as an objection, and presumably advice for as a support, the question might be moot, but I will not speak for SSAC on that.



e) Based on our answer to d), do we need to make any changes to the numbers in the decision-making framework?

If we do not count input from these groups in the consensus decision, but use their advice to help mold the position of other AC/SOs (something that will NOT be easy for a group like the GNSO where its composite position will be made up on votes of it's component parts - the only way the GNSO Council can make a decision), then clearly we need to revise the numbers.





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

Content-Type: application/pdf; name="2015-10-12-CCWG-WP1-SecondPC-CMSM.pdf"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
         filename="2015-10-12-CCWG-WP1-SecondPC-CMSM.pdf"
X-Attachment-Id: f_igd4uwrt0

Content-Type: application/pdf;
         name="2015-10-30-CommunityDecision-MakingTheDublinApproachWorkingPaper.pdf"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=
         "2015-10-30-CommunityDecision-MakingTheDublinApproachWorkingPaper.pdf"
X-Attachment-Id: f_igd50svz1

_______________________________________________
WP1 mailing list
WP1 at icann.org<mailto: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/20151030/23388de9/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the WP1 mailing list