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

[Robin Gross]

This would not be an acceptable alteration of the proposal as it does not reflect the roles assigned to the various parts of the community, neither in the existing board composition nor in this proposal.

There are many people in this group who are not Members and therefore have no vote, technically.  However they are still able to drive the discussion with their robust participation in the process.  So simply saying they have no votes, leaves out the entire point of their contribution, including its role, which is the key point the proposal tries to make.

Robin

On Jul 31, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:

> 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/20150731/1fe8bffe/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150731/1fe8bffe/signature.asc>