<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">In the Proposal text relating to Robin's proposal, the roles for GAC, SSAC and RSSAC is described as a "liaison" role. In Robin's email, it is referred to as an "advisory" role. Since we are only talking about the voting phase, and not the petition or discussion phase, it's likely that neither word is accurate. In the voting phase, these are simply non-participants. I would suggest the language read as follows:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:.25pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:0in"><span style="background:yellow">A
third [minority] view is that there should be four votes each for the ASO, ccNSO
and GNSO, two votes for ALAC and no votes for the GAC, the SSAC and the</span><span style="text-indent:0in;background-color:yellow"> RSSAC.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:.25pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:0in"><span style="text-indent:0in;background-color:yellow"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:.25pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:0in">This narrowly deals with the issue at hand.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:.25pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:0in"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:.25pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:0in">Greg</p></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Robin Gross <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org" target="_blank">robin@ipjustice.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Sorry, I accidentally left out GAC as an "Advisory" role in the text below. So the votes in the board composition model would be:<div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><span class=""><div> 4 votes for GNSO, CCNSO, ASO</div><div> 2 votes for ALAC</div></span><div> Advisory roles for <font color="#e81f13"><b>GAC</b></font>, SSAC and RSSAC</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Apologies for any confusion.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Robin</div><div><br><div><div><div class="h5"><div>On Jul 31, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Robin Gross wrote:</div><br></div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Thanks, Jordan, I appreciate your willingness to include diverse viewpoints in the report. However, the proposal for the voting weights is somewhat mis-stated in this draft. The proposal to model the board composition for voting weights is for a *ratio* of votes, not for an exact number of votes. <div><br></div><div>If we are to list these proposals as exact number of votes proposed, then, for consistency sake, please note that my proposal for the weighted votes would be: <div> 4 votes for GNSO, CCNSO, ASO</div><div> 2 votes for ALAC</div><div> Advisory roles for SSAC and RSSAC<br><div><br></div><div>While it is the board composition *ratio* I am proposing to use as our model (2 votes for GNSO, CCNSO, ASO; 1 vote for ALAC; Advisory Roles for SSAC, RSSAC), the actual number of votes would be larger to reflect the diversity of views within the various constituent parts.</div><div><br></div><div>I hope the draft can be updated to correctly reflect that my proposal was for a *ratio* of votes (not actual number of votes) in the community mechanism.</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you,</div><div>Robin</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Jul 30, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">Hi all<div><br></div><div>Attached please find mark ups showing update on the voting weights part of 5A based on the discussion at this forty-seventh CCWG meeting.<br clear="all"><div><br></div><div>Comments etc welcome, preferably on the main CCWG list.</div><div><br></div><div>Jordan</div><div><br></div>-- <br><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr" style="font-size:small">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br><br>+64-495-2118 (office) | <a href="tel:%2B64-21-442-649" value="+6421442649" target="_blank">+64-21-442-649</a> (mob)<br>Email: <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<br></div><div dir="ltr" style="font-size:small"><br><i>A better world through a better Internet </i></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>
<span><5A2-CommMech-VOTING-INFLUENCE-after-CCWG-47.docx></span><span><5A2-CommMech-VOTING-INFLUENCE-after-CCWG-47.pdf></span>_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>WP1 mailing list<br><a href="mailto:WP1@icann.org" target="_blank">WP1@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div><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>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>