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

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Jul 27 14:38:10 UTC 2015 

This would have been my alternative as well 
(although with 5 votes all across). My 
understanding however, is that the position of 
SSAC is that they did not want the ABILITY to 
exercise a vote and that putting it in the Bylaws 
as you suggest would be problematic.

But I will let Julie/Lyman speak for themselves.

Alan

At 26/07/2015 11:58 PM, Paul Szyndler wrote:


>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 – couldd 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 – 
>succh 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: <http://www.auda.org.au/>www.auda.org.au
>Twitter: <http://twitter.com/auda>@auda | Blog: 
><http://www.auda.org.au/blog/>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 
><<mailto:arun.sukumar at nludelhi.ac.in>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 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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" 
><<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>jordan at internetnz.net.nz >
>Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 6:30 AM
>To: <mailto:wp1 at icann.org>wp1 at icann.org, 
><mailto:accountability-cross-community 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
>
><tel:04%20495%202118>04 495 2118 (office) | 
><tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649>+64 21 442 649 (mob)
><mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>Skype: jordancarter
>
>To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WP1 mailing list
><mailto:WP1 at icann.org>WP1 at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20150727/4ee7ea79/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list