[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 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
>>>>
>>>>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