<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Avri,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I would be happy to be less GNSO-centric, but the particular issue I raise is one that is GNSO-centric. It also seems that other groups in fact received "seats" that could be assigned in a way that was more in line with their internal organization. That said, the idea of getting away from "representation" and moving more toward "skill set" has merit (literally as well as figuratively). Unfortunately, depending on the subject under review, there can still be a significant issue that "point of view" (or "group of origin") influences or even overshadows the application of any particular skill set. In other words "where you stand often depends on where you sit."</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">An example of this is what I read as your characterization of the Intellectual Property Constituency as a "fine level division" of the GNSO. The IPC has existed as an organization within ICANN since 1999. Regardless of various changes over the years, I would never consider the group to be a "fine level division" of the GNSO, and leveraging the current structure of the GNSO in an attempt to eliminate the IPC's participation in policy-making or other ICANN activities is an unfortunate misuse of that structure.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Finally, I would note that the current bylaws contain several "bodycounts," so it is hardly unprecedented to do so. That is of course contrasted with the much more high-level statements in the AoC, which barely even touch on proportionality. It's possible we could end up there, whether we do so because it's right, or we do it because that's what's possible.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Avri Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
I think we need to be little less GNSO centric in these discussions.<br>
<br>
Each ACSO needs to figure out how to select the people it put forward<br>
for any of the review panels. There are diversity requirements and<br>
there are skill components to the selection.<br>
<br>
Also while ACSO should be free to internally partition their<br>
organizations as finely as they wish, that does not mean that the review<br>
panels need to reflect all of the fine level divisions the AC or SO<br>
decide to make.<br>
<br>
To base the bylaw body count on an partition level other than the ACSO,<br>
subject it to settings that may be ephemeral; in fact many of us in the<br>
GNSO are arguing for an internal re-shifting in the near future.<br>
<br>
Perhaps the problem is that 5 is too many per ACSO, and we should be<br>
talking about smaller groups, like 3, that don't tempt us into filling<br>
them with every subdivided SG/C/Interest Groups/RALO/Region/Langauge<br>
family/Level of Development/... finer division but deasl more with<br>
overall diversity, skills and the willingness to really work on the review.<br>
<br>
This brings up another issue. At the moment we have a flat selector<br>
mechanism, the ACSO pick them and that is it. While we have decided<br>
that it should be the ACSO themselves that pick the members, we have<br>
lost the balancing ability that selectors such as the Board and GAC<br>
chair or CEO had. Perhaps we should have a formula in which each ACSO<br>
can present 5, 7 or even more candidates from which the combined ACSO<br>
Chairs would pick 21, with no more than 3 from each ACSO.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
On 04-Jul-15 05:49, Edward Morris wrote:<br>
><br>
>><br>
>> Simply put, the GNSO has more than 5 separate, discrete and formally<br>
>> chartered stakeholder groups; it has 7. Each of these groups operate<br>
>> separately and self-sufficiently, and each deserves a seat at the<br>
>> table. If any two or more of these groups chooses to be viewed as a<br>
>> combination and/or to operate primarily as a combined organization,<br>
>> and share a single seat, that should be their prerogative. However,<br>
>> unless such a choice is made, the reality that these groups are<br>
>> separate must be honored.<br>
><br>
> Which is the position I would take were I a leader of a GNSO NCPH<br>
> commercial constituency interested in empowering my entity at the<br>
> expense of others. Under Greg's proposal, NCPH commercial interests<br>
> would receive 42.8% of the seats allocated to the GNSO, a far greater<br>
> percentage than they would receive under the weighted voting procedure<br>
> currently used in the GNSO. Indeed, this proposal would see the<br>
> Commercial Stakehokder Group alone receive more seats than the entire<br>
> Contracted Party House and would give them 60% of the seats awarded to<br>
> the NCPH ratter than 50% of NCPH power sharing in the current<br>
> arrangement.<br>
><br>
> This is not acceptable. The transition should not be used to alter<br>
> power balances within ICANN that have been carefully negotiated over<br>
> the past decade and one half. Indeed, if diversity were the value to<br>
> be promoted the noncommercial interests, the largest in number and<br>
> most diverse in origin in all of ICANN, should be tapped for greater<br>
> representation in the new model. I am not suggesting this at this time<br>
> in recognition that the entire transition could be derailed if we<br>
> attempt to rearrange power balances within ICANN.<br>
><br>
> Rather I would suggest that the current ATRT organizational<br>
> representation balance be ported into the new model. Although the<br>
> actual numbers involved may, of course, be increased the proportional<br>
> balance ( under which the GNSO, ALAC and ccNSO receive about 22% of<br>
> the seats and the ASO, GAC and SSAC about 11%) should not be changed<br>
> as envisioned in the initial post. I write this as one who believes<br>
> that the GNSO is seriously underrepresented in this arrangement. The<br>
> CCWG ACCT should also not get involved in apportioning the seats<br>
> between groups within the SOAC's. Rather current arrangements must be<br>
> respected and seats and participants apportioned according to internal<br>
> voting arrangements within the SOAC's. This is truly bottom up status<br>
> quo rather than the top down micromanaged power rearrangement by the<br>
> CCWG ACCT suggested in Greg's post or the numerical rearrangement<br>
> suggested in the initial post.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Steve DelBianco<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Avri and I recommend this text on creation of review teams for<br>
>> AoC reviews being brought into the bylaws. We picked-up in the<br>
>> community voting weights that will be used for AC/SOs exercising<br>
>> their “community powers” here:<br>
>><br>
>> All reviews will be conducted by a volunteer community review<br>
>> team comprised of representatives of the relevant Advisory<br>
>> Committees, Supporting Organizations, and the chair of the<br>
>> ICANN Board.<br>
>><br>
>> Up to 5 volunteers are welcomed from each AC/SO, to<br>
>> accommodate representatives of individual stakeholder<br>
>> groups. If a review team conducts a consensus call on its<br>
>> report and recommendations, voting will be equalized among<br>
>> the participating AC/SOs.<br>
>><br>
>> The group must be as diverse as possible.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Thoughts on that?<br>
>><br>
>> From: Jordan Carter<br>
>> Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 11:29 PM<br>
>> To: "<a href="mailto:wp1@icann.org">wp1@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:wp1@icann.org">wp1@icann.org</a>>"<br>
>> Subject: [WP1] WP1 Work to Do - Now to July - Please Read<br>
>><br>
>> Dear all<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks for the contributions on our work planning call for Work<br>
>> Party 1 today. *Please read this email carefully and add your<br>
>> thoughts. *<br>
>><br>
>> A separate note later today or early tomorrow will outline the<br>
>> WP1 meetings we need to have between now and 14 July.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> We have three pieces of work to do by the end of the month. They<br>
>> are listed below, and then some detail fleshed out in the rest of<br>
>> this email, along with the *call for volunteers...*<br>
>><br>
>> Three things need to be done:<br>
>><br>
>> *1. Prepare draft content for our Second Public Comment report,<br>
>> for discussion at Paris & finalising by end month*<br>
>> *<br>
>> *<br>
>> *2. Start the bylaws-preparation process, using the AOC reviews<br>
>> as a test case*<br>
>> *<br>
>> *<br>
>> *3. Prepare responses to all the public comments from PC1*<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> *On 1:* the chunks of work we need to do are to prepare updated<br>
>> content that takes account of:<br>
>><br>
>> - the feedback received in PC1<br>
>> - the discussions with the community and in our group at Buenos Aires<br>
>> - further analysis and refinement we make as WP1<br>
>><br>
>> This draft material should be done in time for the Paris meeting,<br>
>> and so has to respect the document freeze on 14 July.<br>
>><br>
>> We need to do this for the following areas, and we need a Lead<br>
>> Volunteer for each area:<br>
>><br>
>> Community Mechanism - balance of power / votes / influence<br>
>> Community Mechanism - whether there is a Council, or just a vote<br>
>> counting mechanism<br>
>><br>
>> Community Power - Budget/Strat Plan / Operating Plan<br>
>> Community Power - Blocking ordinary bylaws changes<br>
>> Community Power - Approving Fundamental Bylaws changes<br>
>> Community Power - Removal of individual Directors<br>
>> Community Power - Recall of the whole ICANN Board<br>
>><br>
>> Affirmation of Commitments - inclusion of AOC reviews in bylaws<br>
>> Affirmation of Commitments - other matters (what happens to AOC, etc)<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Not on this list is the Model itself (empowered designators,<br>
>> empowered SO/AC) - my understanding is that the lawyers are being<br>
>> asked to develop material on this, and that it will be central to<br>
>> our meeting in Paris.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> *If there are areas of work omitted above, please raise them ASAP*.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> *:: Call for Volunteers ::*<br>
>><br>
>> If you would like to *volunteer* to lead any particular piece of<br>
>> work for the above, *please do so ASAP* - by email to me, or to<br>
>> this email list.<br>
>><br>
>> Ideally, there will be one volunteer for each of the lines above.<br>
>> I have some people who have agreed to be "voluntold" - Avri and<br>
>> Matt Shears are in this category. But for the start, free choice!<br>
>><br>
>> The task will be to be lead writer on a tracked changes version<br>
>> of the PC1 content, showing what you propose to change for the<br>
>> Second report.<br>
>><br>
>> The approach asked is to:<br>
>><br>
>> a) analyse the public comments and the discussions in BA<br>
>> b) propose draft text changes that take this into account<br>
>><br>
>> The example Steve delBianco circulated earlier today is a way to<br>
>> do it.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Your drafting will lead to discussion of your proposed content in<br>
>> WP1. We will do as much as we can to improve the drafts and get<br>
>> consensus, but we will debate all the material through in Paris<br>
>> is my current knowledge.<br>
>><br>
>> On *item 2 - bylaws drafting - *Steve has started this process<br>
>> with the AOC and we will discuss this content on our next WP1 call.<br>
>><br>
>> On *item 3 - public comments replies -* I propose that people<br>
>> take some account of this as they do the drafting work, and be<br>
>> prepared to spend some time on completing this task (responses to<br>
>> the comments we got in PC1) *after* the Paris meeting.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I look forward to your thoughts as to any gaps in the proposed<br>
>> work, and to your volunteering excellence.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> cheers<br>
>> Jordan<br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Jordan Carter<br>
>><br>
>> Chief Executive<br>
>> *InternetNZ*<br>
>><br>
>> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649<br>
>> <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob)<br>
>> <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>><br>
>> Skype: jordancarter<br>
>><br>
>> /A better world through a better Internet /<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> WP1 mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:WP1@icann.org">WP1@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:WP1@icann.org">WP1@icann.org</a>><br>
>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> WP1 mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:WP1@icann.org">WP1@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:WP1@icann.org">WP1@icann.org</a>><br>
>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1</a><br>
<br>
<br>
---<br>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
WP1 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:WP1@icann.org">WP1@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>