[CCWG-ACCT] Voting weights in community mechanism
Dr Eberhard Lisse
el at lisse.NA
Thu Jul 30 08:07:40 UTC 2015
I can not find any reference in the Charter or anywhere else that this
participant has been appointed arbiter of what submissions are timely or
not. Either an argument has substance or not, but when it is submitted
has nothing to do with substance.
This is straight out of the handbook "Short Term Negotiation Skills".
For "hardly the kind of objection that even merits a response" I find
the response quite long, though without much substance. As usual.
el
On 2015-07-30 07:22, Greg Shatan wrote:
> This is really quite a baffling last-second attempt to throw together a
> bunch of half-truths and outright misstatements, casting unwarranted
> aspersions on the careful work that this group with an objective that is
> entirely unclear. Any examination of these statements causes them to
> fall like a house of cards.
>
> 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.
>
>
> The membership of RSSAC is public knowledge and has been for the
> duration of this CCWG. A voting role for the RSSAC has been a
> possibility for months, and no one raised this "issue." I'm always
> skeptical when somebody says something is "obvious" -- it usually means
> it's BS. This attempt to trump up problems is so slapdash that the
> (readily available) facts aren't even accurate. There are 3 root
> servers under the US government, but only two are associated with the US
> military -- the third is controlled by NASA, a civilian agency. These
> have been around pretty much since the dawn of Internet time, so
> claiming this is suddenly a problem is really quite absurd. Are there
> any issues from the history of ICANN that can be cited as arising from
> the control of these root servers, or the membership of their (civilian)
> administrators in RSSAC. This just seems like FUD. Calling it a
> "mistake" doesn't make it one.
>
> As far as "illusion" busting, whether one participant decides to oppose
> for a series of manufactured reasons that don't hold water does not
> "bust" consensus. Going back to those reasons, for a little "myth-busting":
>
> 1) inclusion of the U.S. military as a voting member through RSSAC,
>
>
> Answered above
>
> 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,
>
>
> There are no "current voting arrangements," unless one is referring to
> the ICANN Board, which is quite a different thing than this community
> mechanism; it's completely unclear and unexplained what "CCWG policy" is
> being "violated" -- misusing the term "consensus policy" to give this
> unsupported claim a sense of gravitas is really quite amusing...
>
> 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,
>
>
> This is another summary "issue" that's never been raised before and
> magically appears now without any explanation or clarification. What
> possibility is being referred to? There has been some discussion of the
> possibility of parties being members of different constituencies or SGs
> in the GNSO, but that's been dealt with already (such parties can only
> vote in one such organization) and is clearly not what's being referred
> to here. There's a lot of scary, FUD-y words being thrown around but
> absolutely no substance -- no explanation, no detail, no credibility.
> The fact that a root server operator may also be a registry operator
> (among hundreds of registry operator), or that a GAC member may also be
> a ccNSO operator (among a couple hundred ccNSO registry operators) does
> not somehow become a concern due to vague imprecations in a rushed
> email, which won't even be defended by its author.
>
> 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
>
>
>
> This is just a restatement of number 3, and fails along with it
> . Trying to inflate some unstated minor occurrence (which I assume to
> be the overlaps stated above) into some self-styled "double dipping"
> problem just doesn't hold water. Being a member of two different bodies
> or committees does not violate "one party/one vote" and claiming this
> somehow be a violation of international law is just hysterical (in both
> senses of the word).
>
>
>
> ...plus likely a number of other problems that neither of us have
> thought of given the rushed nature of things.
>
>
> This basically translates as "I can't think of any problems, but there
> must be some." That is hardly the kind of objection that even merits a
> response.
>
> Finally, I disagree with the characterization of the 5/2 proposal, and
> think that the suggested statement would be neither truthful nor
> transparent -- rather, it would by false and hyperbolic.
>
> I must give my esteemed colleague points for inventiveness, but none for
> substance. This is the virtual equivalent of throwing a stink-bomb into
> the middle of a meeting and then running away. Thankfully, we don't
> need to clear the room to get rid of the odor.
>
> If this an attempt to buy more time for some colleagues who are still
> working on minority statements, I can also give points for loyalty. But
> the schedule for publication of this document has been well-known for
> weeks. It's unfortunate that some could not plan ahead to meet that
> timeframe. I hardly think it's prejudicial if these are published or
> notified to the public comment page a couple of days after the Report --
> appropriate notice can be made that minority reports are expected. Using
> a loaded term like "separate but equal" (harkening back to the dark days
> of racial segregation in the US) to describe this strays into
> demagoguery. Claiming "we all know" things is no more convincing than
> saying something is "obvious" -- everyone's entitled to their opinion,
> but not to claim that it is "known" by anyone other than themselves. We
> should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, in this instance or
> in the instance of our proposal in general.
>
> It would be helpful if there were some indication of the real goal and
> concern behind this, rather than a bunch of baseless accusations. As it
> is, I remain baffled at what is hoped to be accomplished other than an
> attempt at delay.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>
> *Sent*: Thursday, July 30, 2015 12:11 AM
> *To*: "Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>"
> <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>>,
> "accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>"
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto: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>
> [mailto: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
> <mailto: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-Mechanism-Voting-PenultimateDraft.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1438079125000&api=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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
>
--
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421 \ /
Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list