[CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Revised draft - Voting weights in community mechanism
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Jul 27 14:49:33 UTC 2015
If you are saying that 5 votes is insufficient to
represent the views of those charged with
supporting the 3 billion Internet users, we will gladly accept more votes. ;-)
Alan
At 26/07/2015 11:25 PM, Arun Sukumar 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 Iâve 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. Iâm
>>>>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 âconsider
>>>>and provide adviceâ on the activities of
>>>>ICANN, insofar as they relate to the
>>>>interests of individual Internet usersâ. It
>>>>was NOT âstructurally designed to represent Internet users within ICANNâ.
>>>>
>>>>Two inaccuracies:
>>>>
>>>>1. ALAC was designed with to be the home of
>>>>individual Internet users. Many Internet
>>>>users are not individuals. ALAC was not
>>>>âstructurally designedâ to be the
>>>>âhomeâ of any of them, itâs structural
>>>>remit being limited to individual Internet users;
>>>>
>>>>2. ALAC was not âstructurally designedâ
>>>>to represent anyone. It was âstructurally
>>>>designedâ to âconsider and provide
>>>>adviceâ 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 âstructurally
>>>>designedâ to represent both non-commercial
>>>>registrants and non-commercial Internet users
>>>>of generic Top-Level domains with ICANN. The
>>>>same remit for itâs 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. ALACâs function is
>>>>to âconsider and provide adviceâ. The
>>>>NCSGâs function is to ârepresentâ. 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, Iâm 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 havenât got tracked changes to
>>>>show you - itâs not much changed from what
>>>>was circulated a few days ago (the redline
>>>>staff draft that hadnât 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)
>>>><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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150727/5681aa2f/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list