[CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Update to 5A.2 on Voting Weights

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Fri Jul 31 18:39:12 UTC 2015


In the Proposal text relating to Robin's proposal, the roles for GAC, SSAC
and RSSAC is described as a "liaison" role.  In Robin's email, it is
referred to as an "advisory" role.  Since we are only talking about the
voting phase, and not the petition or discussion phase, it's likely that
neither word is accurate.  In the voting phase, these are simply
non-participants.  I would suggest the language read as follows:

A third [minority] view is that there should be four votes each for the
ASO, ccNSO and GNSO, two votes for ALAC and no votes for the GAC, the SSAC
and the RSSAC.


This narrowly deals with the issue at hand.


Greg

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Sorry, I accidentally left out GAC as an "Advisory" role in the text
> below.  So the votes in the board composition model would be:
>
>  4 votes for GNSO, CCNSO, ASO
>  2 votes for ALAC
>  Advisory roles for *GAC*, SSAC and RSSAC
>
>
> Apologies for any confusion.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> On Jul 31, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>
> Thanks, Jordan, I appreciate your willingness to include diverse
> viewpoints in the report.  However, the proposal for the voting weights is
> somewhat mis-stated in this draft.  The proposal to model the board
> composition for voting weights is for a *ratio* of votes, not for an exact
> number of votes.
>
> If we are to list these proposals as exact number of votes proposed, then,
> for consistency sake, please note that my proposal for the weighted votes
> would be:
>  4 votes for GNSO, CCNSO, ASO
>  2 votes for ALAC
>  Advisory roles for SSAC and RSSAC
>
> While it is the board composition *ratio* I am proposing to use as our
> model (2 votes for GNSO, CCNSO, ASO; 1 vote for ALAC; Advisory Roles for
> SSAC, RSSAC), the actual number of votes would be larger to reflect the
> diversity of views within the various constituent parts.
>
> I hope the draft can be updated to correctly reflect that my proposal was
> for a *ratio* of votes (not actual number of votes) in the community
> mechanism.
>
> Thank you,
> Robin
>
>
> On Jul 30, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> Attached please find mark ups showing update on the voting weights part of
> 5A based on the discussion at this forty-seventh CCWG meeting.
>
> Comments etc welcome, preferably on the main CCWG list.
>
> Jordan
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
> +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Skype: jordancarter
>
> *A better world through a better Internet *
>
> <5A2-CommMech-VOTING-INFLUENCE-after-CCWG-47.docx>
> <5A2-CommMech-VOTING-INFLUENCE-after-CCWG-47.pdf>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150731/365d3e82/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list