<html>
<body>
This would have been my alternative as well (although with 5 votes all
across). My understanding however, is that the position of SSAC is that
they did not want the ABILITY to exercise a vote and that putting it in
the Bylaws as you suggest would be problematic. <br><br>
But I will let Julie/Lyman speak for themselves.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 26/07/2015 11:58 PM, Paul Szyndler wrote:<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">All,<br>
<br>
I have followed the development of this issue over the last few weeks and
felt a degree of confidence in the mechanisms Jordan had outlined.<br>
However, given the very recent consternation over the issue, I would like
to propose a procedural solution / question.<br>
<br>
Would it not be possible for us to separate the definition of voting
structures from the timing of participation?<br>
In other words – couldd we agree upon the voting weights for SOs and ACs
(5,5,5,5,5,2,2) as a matter of principle and also agree that each can
join at a time of their choosing?<br>
Such a mechanism would require certain caveats – succh as a three month
notice period for engagement, for example.<br>
<br>
Just an idea.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<br>
Paul Szyndler | General Manager, International and Government
Affairs<br>
.au Domain Administration Limited<br>
T: +61 2 6292 5034 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 | M: +61 402 250 389<br>
E:
<a href="mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au">paul.szyndler@auda.org.au</a>
| W: <a href="http://www.auda.org.au/">www.auda.org.au</a>
<br>
Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/auda">@auda</a> | Blog:
<a href="http://www.auda.org.au/blog/">www.auda.org.au/blog/</a>
<br><br>
auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator<br>
<b>Important Notice<br>
</b>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.<br>
<a href="http://www.igf.org.au/"></a><br>
<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
[<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf
Of </b>Jordan Carter<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, 27 July 2015 1:43 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Arun Sukumar<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <wp1@icann.org>;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org Community<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Revised draft - Voting weights in
community mechanism<br>
<br>
Hi everyone<br>
<br>
We did have a great chance to discuss the voting weights question in our
two days of face to face time in Paris a week or so ago.<br>
<br>
This issue of representation was scoped out in our first PC report, which
you'll recall had:<br>
<br>
Five votes each for:<br>
- ASO<br>
- ccNSO<br>
- GNSO<br>
- GAC<br>
- At Large<br>
<br>
Two votes each for:<br>
- RSSAC<br>
- SSAC<br>
<br>
We have clear advice that the last-mentioned ACs do not want to
participate at this time, and I have an impression that GAC is still
discussing its participation.<br>
<br>
[We are, by the by, going to have to set out how the remaining ACs will
be able to opt in at a future point, presumably on the same basis in
terms of # of votes as set out above.]<br>
<br>
In the public comments that came in on the voting weights, there was no
overwhelming feedback to suggest that the ALAC numbers were a
problem.<br>
<br>
How can we workably get this matter resolved?<br>
<br>
What is a compromise that can be lived with - is a referral of this
question to WS2 in a suitable way possible?<br>
<br>
I don't think we should leave the matter of votes open, and I don't think
we should provide options again. We did that last time, and the feedback
was happy enough with what we had proposed.<br>
<br>
Robin, Ed, Arun, Alan, all:<br>
<br>
what can we do to get this working?<br>
<br>
cheers<br>
Jordan<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 27 July 2015 at 15:25, Arun Sukumar
<<a href="mailto:arun.sukumar@nludelhi.ac.in">
arun.sukumar@nludelhi.ac.in</a>> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Agree with Robin and Ed on the issue of equal representation to ALAC.
If at-large is designed to represent internet users, are we really
suggesting that 5 votes will do justice to the diversity of views in this
wide constituency? ALAC, in my personal opinion, should remain an
advisory entity.<br>
<dd>Sent from my iPad<br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>On 27 Jul 2015, at 07:53, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Robin, the ALAC and GAC have everything to do with the Public
Interest, which is paramount in ICANN's mission. <br><br>
<dd>Alan<br><br>
<dd>At 26/07/2015 09:41 PM, Robin Gross wrote:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>Thanks for bringing this up, Edward. I am having a hard time
accepting that ALAC and GAC should have an equal role as GNSO and CCNSO
on these issues. GAC and ALAC currently have advisory roles and
this proposal certainly evolves and elevates those roles in relation to
the SO's, so I cannot accept it. <br><br>
<dd>GAC and ALAC should continue to have *advisory* roles, which I
understand the GAC may be prepared to accept. But giving ALAC such
an elevated representation (which overlaps with NCSG and CSG) is a
problem in my view. If it goes out as "equal weights" to
the ACs, I believe I'll be compelled to issue a minority report on this
issue of weighted votes.<br><br>
<dd>Thanks,<br>
<dd>Robin<br><br>
<br>
<dd>On Jul 26, 2015, at 6:10 PM, Edward Morris wrote:<br><br>
<br>
<dl>
<dd>Hi everybody,<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>In reviewing document 5A2 I’ve come across what I believe is an
inaccuracy that I hope we can to work together to correct. Actually, to
be honest, the inaccuracy was discovered and reported to me by a member
of the NCSG, which I represent on the GNSO Council. I’m referring
to this paragraph, specifically that portion I have italicized:<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>-----<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>The community mechanism gives the bulk of influence on an equal basis
between the three SOs for which ICANN deals with policy development and
the At-Large Advisory Committee (which was structurally designed to
represent Internet users within ICANN)</i>. If a new SO or another AC
gains voting rights in the community mechanism at a later stage, they
would receive an equal number of votes.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>-----<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>The description of ALAC is simply not true.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>I refer everyone to the ICANN Bylaws, article X, section 4(a), which
states:<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>-----<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is the primary organizational
home within ICANN for individual Internet users. The role of the ALAC
shall be to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN,
insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users.
This includes policies created through ICANN's Supporting Organizations,
as well as the many other issues for which community input and advice is
appropriate. The ALAC, which plays an important role in ICANN's
accountability mechanisms, also coordinates some of ICANN's outreach to
individual Internet users.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>----<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>ALAC was structurally designed to “consider and provide
advice</i>” on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the
interests of individual Internet users</i>”. It was NOT
“structurally designed to represent Internet users within
ICANN”.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Two inaccuracies:<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>1. ALAC was designed with to be the home of individual </i>Internet
users. Many Internet users are not individuals. ALAC was not
“structurally designed” to be the “home” of any of them, it’s
structural remit being limited to individual Internet users;<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>2. ALAC was not “structurally designed” to represent anyone. It
was “structurally designed” to “consider and provide advice” to
ICANN on behalf of individual Internet users.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>To help illustrate the difference, I would refer you to section 1.1
of the Board approved Non-Commercial Stakeholder group Charter, which
reads:<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>----<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>The purpose of the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) is to
represent</i>, through its elected representatives and its
Constituencies, the interests and concerns of non-commercial registrants
and non-commercial Internet users of generic Top-Level domains.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>---<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>The NCSG was designed to have a representative function. It is
accurate to state that the NCSG was “structurally designed” to
represent</i> both non-commercial registrants and non-commercial Internet
users of generic Top-Level domains with ICANN. The same remit for it’s
designated community cannot be attributed to ALAC.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>As an advisory committee ALAC does not have the same functional
design as the NCSG, a constituent part of the GNSO, in terms of
representation at ICANN. ALAC’s function is to “consider and provide
advice”. The NCSG’s function is to “represent”. They are
different.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>We need to be accurate in the information we put in the document we
are creating for public comment. As has happened here, members of the
community will pick up on inaccuracies and that will lead to credibility
problems for our entire effort.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>I suggest that the following language be substituted in document
52A:<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>---<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>The community mechanism gives the bulk of influence on an equal basis
between the three SOs for which ICANN deals with policy development and
the At-Large Advisory Committee (which was structurally designed to
consider and provide advice on behalf of individual </i>Internet users
within ICANN). If a new SO or another AC gains voting rights in the
community mechanism at a later stage, they would receive an equal number
of votes.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>---<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>I will note that this proposed language has been taken directly from
the ICANN bylaws, modified only by a joining clause. It is accurate. The
previous language was not.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>I recognize that accuracy in description might cause some to question
the appropriate role of some groups going forward. If so, it might be a
conversation we need to have. At the moment, though, I’m just trying to
make sure our documentation reflects reality rather than aspiration.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Thanks for considering,<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Ed<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<hr>
<div align="center"></div>
<dd>From</b>: "Jordan Carter"
<<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>
><br>
<dd>Sent</b>: Sunday, July 26, 2015 6:30 AM<br>
<dd>To</b>: <a href="mailto:wp1@icann.org">wp1@icann.org</a>,
<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>Subject</b>: [CCWG-ACCT] Revised draft - Voting weights in community
mechanism <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Hi everyone <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Here is an update of the previously not-updated text on voting
weights. I am sorry that I haven’t got tracked changes to show you -
it’s not much changed from what was circulated a few days ago (the
redline staff draft that hadn’t actually been finished).<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>We still need to develop quorum and participation rules - I believe
Bernie is working on a paper on this, for discussion next week.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>This is on the agenda for WP1 on 27 July.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>best<br>
<dd>Jordan<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>-- <br>
<dd>Jordan Carter<br><br>
<dd>Chief Executive <br>
<dd>InternetNZ</b><br><br>
<dd><a href="tel:04%20495%202118">04 495 2118</a> (office) |
<a href="tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649">+64 21 442 649</a> (mob)<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>
<br>
<dd>Skype: jordancarter<br><br>
<dd>To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its
potential.<br>
</i>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br><br>
</dl><br><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>WP1 mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:WP1@icann.org">WP1@icann.org</a><br>
<dd><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1</a><br><br>
</dl>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br><br>
</dl><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br><br>
</dl><br><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Jordan Carter<br><br>
Chief Executive <br>
InternetNZ</b><br><br>
+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)<br>
Email:
<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>
</i> <br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</blockquote></body>
</html>