[CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Revised draft - Voting weights in community mechanism

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Mon Jul 27 06:10:54 UTC 2015


On 27 Jul 2015 4:25 am, "Arun Sukumar" <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?
>
Are you really suggesting that 5 votes will  do justice at the GNSO level
as well? I don't think the number of votes is the issue as infact, Atlarge
has the best setup in ICANN that will ensure diversity in those 5 votes.

>
ALAC, in my personal opinion, should remain an advisory entity.
>
Well to the extent that it does not reduce its number of votes. It seem
that we are seeing this accountability process as names only thing. This is
the entire organisation accountability and equal footing is just so
important.

Regards

> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On 27 Jul 2015, at 07:53, Alan Greenberg <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 >
>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 6:30 AM
>>>> To: wp1 at icann.org, 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 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
>>>> 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
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WP1 mailing list
>>> WP1 at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150727/ed67f16e/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list