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

Mon Jul 27 08:49:15 UTC 2015

All,

Might I suggest that as a potential middle ground for everyone that we agree that we all thing that the current mechanism is good and will provide the foundations for accountability that we require, but that given this is essentially setting up the structure for the future of ICANN that we will agree to assess the relative voting weights and the status of the AC’s as part of WS2.  WS” will allow us to have a full and complete conversation on a number of issues that will be intertwined and I would suggest that this may be one of them that requires further assessment.

This seems broadly in line with some members of the GAC also who wish to examine their role and would give SSAC and RSSAC the requisite time they need to formulate their own positions for the long term.

-James

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Szyndler
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 4:58 AM
To: Jordan Carter; Arun Sukumar
Cc: wp1 at icann.org; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Revised draft - Voting weights in community mechanism

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: paul.szyndler at auda.org.au<mailto:paul.szyndler at auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au/>
Twitter: @auda<http://twitter.com/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.
[X]<http://www.igf.org.au/>

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto: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: jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto: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/bc55eaf6/attachment.html>