[CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Revised draft - Voting weights in community mechanism
Paul Szyndler
paul.szyndler at auda.org.au
Mon Jul 27 03:58:04 UTC 2015
All,
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.
However, given the very recent consternation over the issue, I would like to
propose a procedural solution / question.
Would it not be possible for us to separate the definition of voting
structures from the timing of participation?
In other words – could 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?
Such a mechanism would require certain caveats – such as a three month
notice period for engagement, for example.
Just an idea.
Regards,
Paul
Paul Szyndler | General Manager, International and Government Affairs
.au Domain Administration Limited
T: +61 2 6292 5034 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 | M: +61 402 250 389
E: <mailto:paul.szyndler at auda.org.au> paul.szyndler at auda.org.au | W:
www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/>
Twitter: <http://twitter.com/auda> @auda | Blog: www.auda.org.au/blog/
<http://www.auda.org.au/blog/>
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.
<http://www.igf.org.au/>
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Jordan Carter
Sent: Monday, 27 July 2015 1:43 PM
To: Arun Sukumar
Cc: <wp1 at icann.org>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Revised draft - Voting weights in community
mechanism
Hi everyone
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.
This issue of representation was scoped out in our first PC report, which
you'll recall had:
Five votes each for:
- ASO
- ccNSO
- GNSO
- GAC
- At Large
Two votes each for:
- RSSAC
- SSAC
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.
[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.]
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.
How can we workably get this matter resolved?
What is a compromise that can be lived with - is a referral of this question
to WS2 in a suitable way possible?
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.
Robin, Ed, Arun, Alan, all:
what can we do to get this working?
cheers
Jordan
On 27 July 2015 at 15:25, Arun Sukumar <arun.sukumar at nludelhi.ac.in
<mailto:arun.sukumar at nludelhi.ac.in> > wrote:
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.
Sent from my iPad
On 27 Jul 2015, at 07:53, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> > wrote:
Robin, the ALAC and GAC have everything to do with the Public Interest,
which is paramount in ICANN's mission.
Alan
At 26/07/2015 09:41 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
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.
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.
Thanks,
Robin
On Jul 26, 2015, at 6:10 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
Hi everybody,
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:
-----
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). 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.
-----
The description of ALAC is simply not true.
I refer everyone to the ICANN Bylaws, article X, section 4(a), which states:
-----
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.
----
ALAC was structurally designed to “consider and provide advice” on the
activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual
Internet users”. It was NOT “structurally designed to represent Internet
users within ICANN”.
Two inaccuracies:
1. ALAC was designed with to be the home of individual 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;
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.
To help illustrate the difference, I would refer you to section 1.1 of the
Board approved Non-Commercial Stakeholder group Charter, which reads:
----
The purpose of the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) is to represent,
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.
---
The NCSG was designed to have a representative function. It is accurate to
state that the NCSG was “structurally designed” to represent 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.
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.
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.
I suggest that the following language be substituted in document 52A:
---
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 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.
---
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.
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.
Thanks for considering,
Ed
_____
From: "Jordan Carter" <jordan at internetnz.net.nz
<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz> >
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 6:30 AM
To: wp1 at icann.org <mailto:wp1 at icann.org> ,
accountability-cross-community at icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Revised draft - Voting weights in community mechanism
Hi everyone
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).
We still need to develop quorum and participation rules - I believe Bernie
is working on a paper on this, for discussion next week.
This is on the agenda for WP1 on 27 July.
best
Jordan
--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive
InternetNZ
04 495 2118 <tel:04%20495%202118> (office) | +64 21 442 649
<tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
Skype: jordancarter
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
WP1 mailing list
WP1 at icann.org <mailto:WP1 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive
InternetNZ
+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz> jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter
A better world through a better Internet
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150727/982a2d4c/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list