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

Tue Jul 28 10:00:55 UTC 2015

James, all

I have to say that the more that this conversation on voting in the 
community mechanism persists the more I am convinced that the ACs should 
remain in an advisory capacity (and the fact that the weighting changed 
again yesterday is not encouraging).   I also suspect that uncertainty 
over whether or not certain ACs are going to exercise their right to 
vote could be an unacceptable unknown in an otherwise relatively solid 
proposal.

Matthew

On 7/27/2015 3:19 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:
> Hi Alan -
>
> I don’t see the equivalency between ALAC and GAC on the issue of 
> Public Interest.  Agree with Robin & ED that there is significant 
> overlap between ALAC and the NCSG, CSG, and even the customers served 
> by contracted parties, and that both ACs should retain their 
> “advisory” roles.
>
> Thanks—
>
> J.
>
>
> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf 
> of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 
> <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>
> Date: Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 21:23
> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>, 
> Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>, 
> "wp1 at icann.org <mailto:wp1 at icann.org>" <wp1 at icann.org 
> <mailto:wp1 at icann.org>>, "accountability-cross-community at icann.org 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> Community" 
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Revised draft - Voting weights in 
> community mechanism
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- 
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150728/8e0a923a/attachment.html>