[CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

Mon Jul 27 06:23:48 UTC 2015

Greg,

 - I'm saddened by the fact that you seem to want the CCWG to micromanage the affairs of SOAC's. I certainly don't.

 I think we still have a significant problem here, based on the language in the document (and spurred on by your explanation).  

 - As I wrote my explanation was simply my own view of why the number eight works for the GNSO. That you disagree is expected. I'm finding a lot of groups in this process are using the CCWG in an aspirational way, trying to achieve goals through the Accountability process they have not been able to achieve through normal processes such as structural reviews. For those of us who are merely attempting to transition ICANN using the structures currently in place the documents language is fine. Obviously you appear to be looking to achieve a little bit more through the process. If not, there are many ways to divide our eight representatives, Greg, and I look forward to working with IPC's Counsellors to find a solution that maximises our diverse contribution to the ICA.  

 First, the language:

 Each ICANN SO or AC would be asked to nominate between one and seven [or eight] people to participate in the ICA - this is to ensure that there is at least some presence from each part of the community in the ICA , and some likelihood that its activities and discussions will include a wide range of perspectives.  [emphasis added]
 .

 Your explanation of why 8 was a good number for the GNSO specifically gave me pause: " Eight is easily divisible by two, the number of GNSO houses, and four, the number of GNSO stakeholder groups."  This is a textbook example of the problem, for  the simple reason that the 3 Constituencies that comprise the CSG are not divisible by 2. If only two seats are allocated to these 3 groups, one will be frozen out and will not be present.  Any "community assembly" where one or more of these constituencies cannot be present fails to meet the most basic test for inclusion and thus fails as an organization.

 - I believe in the bottom up process, Greg, and it's a shame you appear not to. That commercial interests in ICANN chose to create formal organisations within their stakeholder group is of little interest to me. Organise as you wish. That's bottom up. We in the noncommercial world have chosen to subdivide into fewer units. I'll note that our way is a bit more efficient and has less overhead. We have a wide variety of interests within our Stakeholder Group ranging, for example, from the Bibliotecha Alexandrina to the American Civil Liberties Union, from the British Red Cross to the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. We could subdivide into many constituencies based upon interest or belief but we find our way to be a bit more stimulating and productive. It's a much more interesting world when the folks from the Centre for Democracy and Technology have discussions with peers from the Heritage Foundation. You might try it. I'm sure it would be fascinating to hear conversations between people from Microsoft (member Intellectual Property Constituency) and people from Microsoft (member Business Constituency), all which could properly take place within the Commercial Stakeholders Group (or Microsoft's corporate headquarters).  

 In order to avoid this outcome, whether in the GNSO, the ALAC or otherwise, the paragraph excerpted above must be modified as follows (text in red added):

 Each ICANN SO or AC would be asked to nominate between one and seven [or eight] people to participate in the ICA. Each ICANN SO or AC shall nominate at least one person from each formal part of that SO or AC wishing to be represented  -- this is to ensure that there is at least some presence from each part of the community in the ICA ,  and some likelihood that its activities and discussions will include a wide range of perspectives.

 - Absolutely not. Your formulation presupposes that formal structure equates to separate diverse interests. It certainly does not.  As noted previously some commercial groups are members of multiple CSG constituencies. Your proposal would give them two shots at influence, something again that seems to be the goal of many groups here. I'll admit that's a problem in the noncommercial world as well: there are groups that are members of both the Noncommercial Users Constituency and the Not for Profit Operational Concerns Constituency. I'm sure you'll agree with me that double dipping should not be allowed, whether it be for commercial or noncommercial  interests. That's one of the reasons the GNSO House structure works: you might be a business with intellectual property concerns, or a nonprofit with operational and substantive concerns, but you are not both noncommercial and commercial. The House structure prevents double dipping. 

 ?Diversity within the GNSO is already achieved by our structure which gives commercial interests, noncommercial interests, the registrars and the registries all separate and interconnected roles. Just as we in the noncommercial world will have to balance our various interests,  perspectives and geographical locations (I realise that may not be a huge issue in the CSG with your predominately American membership; over 70% of our members are non American) when selecting our ICA representatives you in the CSG will have to balance your competing interests to ensure that you select diverse representation for the ICA, diversity based upon fact rather than formalistic artificial divisions. If you have trouble doing so you might want to talk to Microsoft (IPC.BC), eBay (IPC/BC) or Com Laude./Valideus (IPC/BC) to see how they manage to pull together such "diverse" interests. As they are members of multiple CSG constituencies I'm sure they are experts in managing the "diversity" of the commercial world.  While you are doing that I'll be trying to help sort how to ensure representation on the ICA from the noncommercial world that pleases both the Heritage Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union. I realize it's a different challenge than pleasing Microsoft/Microsoft but it's one those of us in the noncommercial world will do our best to meet.

 I would also note that your proposal would effectively reduce the contracted parties to a very minor role (likely 1 member each ) in the ICA. From a practical perspective I do not think that is wise. 

 On a related note, I wouldn't hold my breath on GNSO structural reform....  I expect it will come eventually, but we need to plan for what is, not for what if.

 Exactly. And what is now  in the GNSO is a structure that ensures diversity amongst the various components of our little part of ICANN: commercial, noncommercial, registrars and registries. As long as we don't change the proposed language in a way that reduces that diversity through top down imposition of artificial constructs I'm sure we'll be able to come up with a solution that ensures that the GNSO representatives on the ICA truly represent the diverse mosaic of our SO. I'm sure we'll have many options and as a member of the GNSO Council I look forward to working with you, Greg, and your Council representatives to ensure that we achieve an outcome that is truly representative of our community. I'm sure the other SO and AC's will do so as well in ways and manners unique to each organisation.

 Best,

 Ed

 Greg
   On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:   Greg,

 You were missed in Paris. I certainly hope if you decide to be part of the ICA you will be funded. The contribution you've made to our accountability effort and within the GNSO are almost beyond measure.

 Eight is easily divisible by two, the number of GNSO houses, and four, the number of GNSO stakeholder groups. I would have been happy with one (we'd all have to work together to select the one), two, four, sixteen etc. I actually think eight is a pretty good number. It allows for enough diversity yet is small enough to work with.

 I'll be up front and recognise there are a number of proposals floating around for GNSO structural reform. I hope there are some we agree on, I presume there are some we don't. We don't know the future but we do know the present. Hopefully eight gives us enough to work with regardless of the direction we go in.

 I hope this was helpful but should note this was my reasoning only. I was not involved in the selection of the number presented. I did signal my approval, though, of the work done by others on this matter for the reasons indicated. As I said then, for the reasons indicated, "good job".

 Best,

 Ed

----------------------------------------
 From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 2:07 AM
To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net>
Cc: "James Gannon" <james at cyberinvasion.net>, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com>, "Jordan Carter" <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>, "wp1 at icann.org" <wp1 at icann.org>, "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>   
Subject: Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

  Edward,

 Sorry if I missed this conversation in Paris (since I didn't have the funding to get to Paris), but can you explain how 8 is the number that works best for the GNSO?  Thanks!

 Greg

     On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:    Hi James,

 Thanks for picking up on this. Indeed, we did agree on having  up to eight representatives per SO/AC on the ICA. I liked that idea so much I gave a "good job" oral compliment to Alan and Steve in Paris for agreeing this number, one that best works for the GNSO. After all, the "5" we've agreed to for voting does not work well for us in the GNSO but we in the GNSO compromised there to help other communities. It was nice to see some reciprocity.  I'm sure the number "7" is just an oversight that we can correct before we put this document out for public comment.

 I believe in a robust, diverse and representative ICA. Hopefully we won't have to exercise the community powers very often but when we do I want the entire community to be represented in all it's multifaceted grandeur. One provision in our proposal would tend to discourage that: the level of support proposed for ICA members.

 I'd like to propose that we extend funding to all ICA nominees, not just the 5 voting members per group. I believe people think the CCWG funding methodology, which our proposal copies, has worked: it has not, at least not for those of us in the noncommercial community. I can tell you stories of our Istanbul meeting where I had to walk  for a half hour each night following our meetings  through a red light district to get to my bed in a youth hostel. I'm not a youth but our NCUC budget, from which I received support for the meeting, is not large. My post midnight walk on day one  (the legal subteam worked until close to midnight the first night) was particularly interesting.

 I should note the difficulty our supported Member to the CCWG has had in getting to the CCWG meetings. For Istanbul, Robin had a flight cancellation and was unable to rebook in time to attend. For Paris her initial flight had mechanical problems and she arrived after an overnight flight and during our Friday morning meeting. We should learn two things from her story: 1) never book a flight Robin is on; it's just bad luck.  :) and 2) relying upon one person to present a point of view of an entire component of our community at a meeting is not wise. With the serious nature of the issues the ICA will be considering all voices must be heard.

 I should note it's not just noncommercial participants who may be experiencing funding problems in this regard. I've spoken to multiple commercial colleagues whose companies commitment will be reduced following the ACCT project. We need to ensure maximum participation in the ICA for this proposal to be guaranteed the diversity of views and backgrounds this entire construct needs if it is to be considered legitimate by all segments of society.

 In summary: 1) We need to correct the number of ICA participants per group so that it reflects the maximum of "8" which, as James has pointed out, was the agreed position in Paris, and 2) in the interests of diversity and to ensure all voices are heard we need to support all members of the ICA, not just a select few. A two tiered nominee system should not be favoured.

 In terms of budgetary impact costs can be trimmed elsewhere if need be. It makes no sense to provide full support, for example, to SO Council members and not to those nominees who will be participating in our highest deliberative, albeit nonvoting, body. 

 Thanks for considering,

 Ed

----------------------------------------
 From: "James Gannon" <james at cyberinvasion.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 9:14 AM
To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com>, "Jordan Carter" <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>, "wp1 at icann.org" <wp1 at icann.org>, "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly     

a)    Each ICANN SO or AC would be asked to nominate  between one and seven people to participate in the ICA - this is to ensure that there is at least some presence from each part of the community in the ICA, and some likelihood that its activities and discussions will include a wide range of perspectives.  

I assume the 7 is a holdover from a previous version? It was very clearly agreed to be 8 in Paris.  

-James Gannon  

From: wp1-bounces at icann.org [mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 7:55 PM
To: Drazek, Keith; Jordan Carter; wp1 at icann.org; Accountability Cross Community   
Subject: Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

And a bunch of comments from me.

Alan

At 25/07/2015 09:03 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote:

Thanks Jordan, this looks very good to me. Iâ?Tve made a few proposed red-lined edits in the attached, supported by comments. Happy to discuss further.

Regards,
Keith

From: wp1-bounces at icann.org [ mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 10:57 PM
To: wp1 at icann.org; Accountability Cross Community
Subject: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

Hi all

I have taken the draft material from an older paper about the ICANN Community Assembly and pulled it into one place.

Please see attached and debate away!  I've tried to be clear on its solely advisory nature, and have suggested that this would be the forum to use for the Public Accountability Forum suggestion made by advisors a while ago.

best,
Jordan

--
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
InternetNZ

+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter

A better world through a better Internet 

Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document;
         name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK"
 Comments.docx"
Content-Description: 5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly -
 v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.docx
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN"
 Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.docx"; size=32221;
         creation-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:37 GMT";
         modification-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:03:13 GMT"

Content-Type: application/pdf; name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN"
 Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf"
Content-Description: 5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly -
 v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN"
 Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf"; size=24126;
         creation-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:46 GMT";
         modification-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:51 GMT"

_______________________________________________
WP1 mailing list
WP1 at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1  

_______________________________________________
WP1 mailing list
WP1 at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150727/ccb94262/attachment.html>