<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">My responses to the questions below. Thanks, Robin<div><br><div><div>On Oct 29, 2015, at 9:06 PM, Jordan Carter wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">[...]<br><div><i><br></i></div><div><i>a) Do we support the decision-making model (by consensus) replacing the voting approach?</i></div></div></blockquote><div>I do not believe that we are "replacing" the voting approach simply by calling it "consensus". What we are doing, in the shift, is altering the relative weight of the various SO-AC's decision making authority, in the direction that is opposite what public comment called for.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div><i><br></i></div><div><i>b) Do we support only one view being expressed by each SO or AC?</i></div></div></blockquote>No. At the final decision level in the community mechanism, it is important that diverse and minority views be expressed. For example the GNSO consists of 3 commercial stake-holders and 1 non-commercial stakeholders. It will be virtually impossible for non-commercial view points to matter if the GNSO is "forced" to vote a single way. Otherwise, we will always risk tyranny of the majority.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div><i><br></i></div><div><i>c) Do we support an equal say for each participating SO or AC?</i></div></div></blockquote>No. The decisional weights should reflect the existing corporate structure of ICANN - its board of directors and apportion relative weights accordingly (leaving out those who wish to be left out). We have said all along we weren't going to use this accountability process to elevate some SO's or AC's relative to others.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div><i><br></i></div><div><i><br></i></div><div><i>We also need to address the following:</i></div><div><i><br></i></div><div><i>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></div><div><i><br></i></div></div></blockquote><div>Only the ALAC should be a participating AC in the decision making mechanism. The ACs who do not desire to participate understand what their role is and the potential harm in shifting it and we should absolutely respect that. As a general principle, ACs should remain "advisory" and not have an additional say in the community mechanism, although ALAC can have one to match its board member.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div><i>e) Based on our answer to d), do we need to make any changes to the numbers in the decision-making framework?</i></div><div><i><br></i></div><div><i> </i></div></div></blockquote>Yes, we need to listen to public comments and find an arrangement that is more in line with the existing relative weights among SO-ACs and does not empower ACs over SOs as is currently being proposed.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div><b>3. Other Work Required by WP1</b></div><div><i>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.</i></div><div><br></div><div><b>4. Any Other Business<br clear="all"></b><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><b><u>Papers</u></b></div><div><b><u><br></u></b></div><div>I attach PDFs of the Dublin Approach paper and of the Public Comment report section on voting.</div><div><br></div><div>The Dublin paper Google Doc is at: <<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHZl_NvQ1WChatX8NT2Q1rQi4zQZgbrbAxrQSsH3tZQ/edit">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHZl_NvQ1WChatX8NT2Q1rQi4zQZgbrbAxrQSsH3tZQ/edit</a>></div><div><br></div><div>The full WP1 Public Comment is at: <<a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56142506/2015-10-12-CCWG-WP1-SecondPC-FullAnalysis.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1444644438000&api=v2">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56142506/2015-10-12-CCWG-WP1-SecondPC-FullAnalysis.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1444644438000&api=v2</a>></div><div><br></div><div>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): <<a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54693137/PC2%20tool%20-%2024%20SeptBTv2.xlsx?version=1&modificationDate=1443208173000&api=v2">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54693137/PC2%20tool%20-%2024%20SeptBTv2.xlsx?version=1&modificationDate=1443208173000&api=v2</a>></div><div><br></div><div>cheers</div><div>Jordan</div><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr" style="font-size:small">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br></div><div dir="ltr" style="font-size:small"><br>+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (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 style="font-size:small">Web: <a href="http://www.internetnz.nz/" target="_blank">www.internetnz.nz</a> </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>
</div></div>
<span><2015-10-12-CCWG-WP1-SecondPC-CMSM.pdf></span><span><2015-10-30-CommunityDecision-MakingTheDublinApproachWorkingPaper.pdf></span>_______________________________________________<br>WP1 mailing list<br><a href="mailto:WP1@icann.org">WP1@icann.org</a><br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>