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

Fri Oct 30 18:00:40 UTC 2015

Dear all,

I will join the call, but will have to go into another call at 8pm my time, so after the first hour of our call.

So just to make sure:

I am with Alan and Chris on 2a, b and c, and I am with Chris on 2d; of course we cannot but accept (and respect) the position of the RSSAC and SSAC on this.

On 2e I am not quite sure, but tend to stick with what I said in Dublin: the higher the impact of a decision, the more difficult it will be to get support and the easier it will be to get objections. So increasing the threshold to far, might make the power non existent

Cheers,

Roelof

From: <wp1-bounces at icann.org<mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au<mailto:ceo at auda.org.au>>
Date: vrijdag 30 oktober 2015 13:51
To: Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>
Cc: "wp1 at icann.org<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>" <wp1 at icann.org<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [WP1] Pls Read - Agenda for Meeting - WP1 on Fri 30 October at 18h UTC

Jordan, All,

I agree with Alan’s responses to 2 a), b) and c).

In respect to:

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?

I think we should assume that RSSAC like SSAC will elect not to participate and, of course we should respect that.

I agree with Alan that the model needs to be robust enough to allow for additional SOs and ACs in the future. At the very least they needs to be a mandated process for adjusting the model in the event of ‘new’ participants.

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

Yes I believe we do.

As a thought starter:

I think we should work on the basis that we have a pool of 4 participating in consensus with the possibility of advice from a further 3.

On that basis, 3 out of 4 of the pool amounts to 75% of the pool which strikes me as being an acceptable level for the exercise of most of the powers provided there are no objections.

An objection from one SO/AC in the pool should not be enough to block. However, IMO, if one SO/AC, from the pool objects and there is ‘objecting’ advice from GAC, SSAC or RSSAC, that should be sufficient to block. This would mean that if, for example, the GNSO, ASO and ALAC wished to block a bylaw change but the ccNSO objected and the GAC advised against blocking then the block would fail.

I believe there should be a higher threshold for the full Board recall and, of course, the SO/AC individual director recall is subject to a different mechanism

I shall be on the call at least for most of it.

Cheers,

Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer

.au Domain Administration Ltd

T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112

E: ceo at auda.org.au<mailto:ceo at auda.org.au> | W:www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au/>

auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator

Important Notice- This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.

On 30 Oct 2015, at 20:32 , Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>> wrote:

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
_______________________________________________
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/20151030/59ba1b4a/attachment-0001.html>