[CCWG-ACCT] Voting weights in community mechanism
Edward Morris
egmorris1 at toast.net
Thu Jul 30 01:04:35 UTC 2015
Hi all,
Thanks for responding to our concerns about the ability of Board
appointees to block the communities ability to remove Board members. It was
pretty obvious once you examined the proposal as is the political reality
that giving any voting power to the United States military, through it's
3/12 member representation at RSSAC, is going to cause problems. You guys
are under such time pressure mistakes are going to happen and the
consequences of actions may not always be readily apparent. I don't blame
you: there is no Dummies guide to restructuring a major international
corporation in 7 months or less. Writing such a book just might be a wise
career choice once you wrap up this project.
I hope you in good faith are not going to try to claim that there is
consensus for the 5 X2 model. Just so that illusion is busted I oppose that
model for the 1) inclusion of the U.S. military as a voting member through
RSSAC, 2) an unwarranted change of the power balance and functions of the
respective SOAC's when compared to current voting arrangements, which
violates the CCWG policy published in the legal scoping document of 19
March 2015 , a consensus policy whose reversal has not been discussed or
approved by the group, 3) the lack of safeguard against capture through
coordinated manipulation taking advantage of the possibility of parties to
simultaneously belong to multiple SO's and AC's, 4) problems of double
dipping per number 3 which violate the principle of one person / one party
one vote which is customary international law and required by ICANN through
it's Bylaws commitment to adhere to international law...plus likely a
number of other problems that neither of us have thought of given the
rushed nature of things.
I sadly will not be on the calls later today due to pre-existing work
commitments and the last minute scheduling of the calls.
I would respectfully request that if you are going to go ahead with
putting the 5 X 2 proposal in the public comment materials you truthfully
and transparency note that this proposal was a last minute substitute for a
proposal that was deemed inadequate. I understand that this was our
previous proposal but we don't know what the response would have been had
we not ditched it. I agree with Keith that we will need to discuss all of
this again once the public comments are received.
With regards to the minority reports I appreciate the situation you are
in. I do not, however, accept the explanation offered by Thomas that
minority reports will be accepted later but just won't make the
publication. I'm not a big fan of separate but equal. Minority views not in
the initial published report are at a distinct disadvantage in terms of
public receipt and review. We all know this. Let's stop pretending. You are
good guys but you're starting to act like those we want to hold
accountable. I know you really don't want to set the precedent of shorting
minority rights. Thomas, as our GNSO representative I am informing you that
there are at least two groups of GNSO members who are preparing minority
reports but do not believe they can get it done by noon tomorrow. If you
can't do anything, fine, but be please be prepared to explain it to them at
the next Council meeting. I've tried but they are not accepting my
explanations and, frankly, I don't blame them.
Thanks for considering, thanks for your hard work and good luck on the
calls later today.
Best,
Edward Morris
----------------------------------------
From: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 12:11 AM
To: "Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr" <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>,
"accountability-cross-community at icann.org"
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Voting weights in community mechanism
Thanks to the Co-Chairs for this message.
I agree that the best approach at this time is to revert to the 5x5 and 2X2
reference model included in our first proposal. It received support and we
obviously don't have consensus on a replacement model. We'll continue to
discuss and debate the issue of vote distribution, but I suggest we'd be
better off doing so AFTER we receive community feedback from the upcoming
public comment period.
Regards,
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Mathieu Weill
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 9:37 PM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Voting weights in community mechanism
Dear Colleagues,
You will remember that our Initial Report Reference Model on voting weights
was 5 votes for ccNSO, gNSO, ASO, ALAC and GAC, 2 for SSAC and RSSAC.
During the public comment period, we have received some comments (largely
debated since on the list) with regards to the respective number of votes
of gNSO and ALAC, and these are well noted.
During our call on Tuesday we discussed the voting weight section of the
community mechanism proposal and asked for WP1 to refine its proposal
accordingly. The topic was then discussed again during the WP1 call that
followed a few hours later. WP1 agreed to submit to our group a proposal
with 5 votes for each SO or AC, pending intentions from GAC, SSAC and RSSAC
to joint the mechanism as voting members. (see latest doc here :
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888421/5A2-Community-Mech
anism-Voting-PenultimateDraft.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1438079125000&a
pi=v2)
A concern has come to our attention with this latest, new, proposal. If
SSAC and RSSAC have 10 votes out of 35, they could jointly block a Board
recall (75% votes required, 27 votes). Since they are both composed of
individuals appointed by the Board, some may question their independence in
case such a power is triggered. This could raise concerns of conflicts of
interest.
We discussed this between co-chairs and with Jordan as WP1 rapporteurs, and
as a consequence would like to suggest we go back to the initial Reference
model (5x5 and 2x2 votes) as a basis for our public comment document.
This proposal will be on our agenda for Thursday's calls but we wanted to
provide this heads-up in advance in order to facilitate an informed
discussion.
Best regards,
Thomas, Leon & Mathieu
Co-chairs
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
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/20150729/fce84cb3/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list