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

Mathieu Weill mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Mon Jul 27 15:42:05 UTC 2015 

Hi Robin,

I have doubts that the WS1 proposals would be deemed sufficient for 
certification by the NTIA if we don't provide a clear view of the voting 
weights to exercice the community powers. That would lead to significant 
uncertainty regarding the risks of capture, for example.

Best,
Mathieu

Le 27/07/2015 16:58, Robin Gross a écrit :
> The problem with our proposal is that it doesn't take into account the 
> different roles of the various stakeholders at ICANN.  It also leads 
> to double-representation of certain users who participate in both the 
> GNSO and the ALAC.  These are not insignificant concerns, but major 
> holes in the proposal that will need to be dealt with in the interests 
> of organizational accountability.
>
> Perhaps we need to move this issue to WS2, where we can have a 
> meaningful discussion of the appropriate roles of stakeholders in this 
> new model, relative weights, and participation rights.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
> On Jul 27, 2015, at 7:49 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>
>> 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 <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 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (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 
>>>>> <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 
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1

-- 
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150727/d1b0134b/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list