[CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Homework from WP1 call on Fri 30-Oct

Mon Nov 2 01:14:49 UTC 2015

Here's a revised chart -- please disregard the prior one.

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have continuing concerns at the overall level (this does not describe a
> consensus process) and specifically as regards the view of the GNSO (the
> GNSO does not have a process for consensus decision making; the process
> fails to recognize that the GNSO is an organization for gTLD policy-making
> (and the GNSO Council is a policy management body), and that for any other
> purpose the groups participating in the GNSO represent discrete stakeholder
> communities).  Nothing I've read or heard has resolved these concerns.
>
> However, whether we view this as a consensus process or a proto-voting
> process, I'm still grappling with the "weighting" issue (which in turn
> leads to the "fractional" or "splitting" issue).
>
> In order to visualize the relative weights under 3 different scenarios, I
> prepared 3 pie charts, which I've put in the attached document.  (Note that
> this reflects my concern that the stakeholder communities participating in
> the GNSO should be viewed separately for purposes other then gTLD
> policy-making.  Note also that I've assumed that any "ccNSO" participation
> would need to take into account non-ccNSO ccTLDs, so I've reflected that in
> the pie chart labeling.)  Apologies for some "rounding errors" (literally);
> but these do not affect the substance.  Use these charts as you see
> fit....  I'm happy to revise, or prepare other charts, if need be.
>
> Greg
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> Resending as some had a problem reading the file.  - Robin
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 30, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Steve.
>>
>> All, attached is an exploration of the option to provide 4 units to ASO,
>> CCNSO, and GNSO + 2 units to ALAC, as mirrored on the existing board
>> structure.  The threshold percentages were taken from the 2nd draft
>> proposal, and then just transposed into a pool of 14 weighted fractional
>> units.   Suggestions for improvements and comments on this proposal are
>> much appreciated.  (My additions are the comments in pink color in the
>> attached document).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> <alternative weights in Community Mechanism.docx>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
>>
>> Attached is my “homework” assignment today — reflecting split voting
>> option for each AC/SO to decide  whether to exercise a community power.   I
>> updated just the Appendix that Jordan circulated for today’s call, adding
>> explanations and a new column on the decision table (also shown below).
>>
>> <Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png>
>>
>> From: <wp1-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Jordan Carter
>> Date: Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:06 AM
>> To: "wp1 at icann.org"
>> Subject: [WP1] Pls Read - Agenda for Meeting - WP1 on Fri 30 October at
>> 18h UTC
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>> Our call is on Friday from 18h UTC, and may last up to two hours.
>>
>> The proposed agenda items are as follows. *PLEASE READ THIS AGENDA
>> CAREFULLY* as it sets out how I propose we run the meeting and the
>> questions I propose we aim to answer.
>>
>> *1. Review of Agenda*
>>
>> *2. Decision-making in the Community Mechanism*
>> *This agenda item should look at decision-making, and seeing where the WP
>> sits with key issues raised in the "Dublin Approach".*
>>
>> *To prepare for this item I suggest reading the following papers:*
>> *- Community Decision-Making: The Dublin Approach Working Paper*
>> *- Public Comment Analysis - Voting in the community mechanism*
>>
>> *If you have time, also have a look at the staff analysis of public
>> comments - the "Model" and "Voting-Forum" tabs in particular.*
>>
>> *Papers attached or linked below. I have not updated the Dublin Approach
>> paper, but kept the very valuable comments, and moved Robin's added issues
>> into separate rows in the Issues Table.*
>>
>> *My suggestion is that we deal with the following specific questions, as
>> they are the key changes in the model compared with what we presented in
>> the Second Draft Proposal. We should for each question identify whether we
>> have a consensus on them or whether we don't -- so we can advise the full
>> CCWG of WP1's views.*
>>
>> *a) Do we support the decision-making model (by consensus) replacing the
>> voting approach?*
>>
>> *b) Do we support only one view being expressed by each SO or AC?*
>>
>> *c) Do we support an equal say for each participating SO or AC?*
>>
>>
>> *We also need to address the following:*
>>
>> *d) In our Third Draft Proposal, which SOs and ACs do we propose should
>> be participating? that is, do we respect the SSAC's desire not to, and do
>> we take a view re RSSAC?*
>>
>> *e) Based on our answer to d), do we need to make any changes to the
>> numbers in the decision-making framework?*
>>
>>
>>
>> *3. Other Work Required by WP1*
>> *I do not have a current list of work we need to do in the next fortnight
>> but believe this will be clearer following next week's CCWG. I welcome
>> staff or co-chairs' input on this at this point of the WP1 agenda, and of
>> course suggestions from WP1 participants.*
>>
>>
>> *4. Any Other Business *
>>
>>
>>
>> *Papers*
>>
>> I attach PDFs of the Dublin Approach paper and of the Public Comment
>> report section on voting.
>>
>> The Dublin paper Google Doc is at: <
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHZl_NvQ1WChatX8NT2Q1rQi4zQZgbrbAxrQSsH3tZQ/edit
>> >
>>
>> The full WP1 Public Comment is at: <
>> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56142506/2015-10-12-CCWG-WP1-SecondPC-FullAnalysis.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1444644438000&api=v2
>> >
>>
>> You may also find the staff analysis of Public Comments useful, which
>> deals with voting specifically in a couple of the tabs (Model and
>> Voting-Forum): <
>> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54693137/PC2%20tool%20-%2024%20SeptBTv2.xlsx?version=1&modificationDate=1443208173000&api=v2
>> >
>>
>> cheers
>> Jordan
>>
>> --
>> Jordan Carter
>>
>> Chief Executive
>> *InternetNZ*
>>
>> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
>> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>> Skype: jordancarter
>> Web: www.internetnz.nz
>>
>> *A better world through a better Internet *
>>
>> <Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png><Dublin breakout on Community
>> Decision - split votes v1.pdf><Dublin breakout on Community Decision -
>> split votes v1.docx>_______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20151101/acf1d85d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Comparison Chart - Revised.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 202836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151101/acf1d85d/ComparisonChart-Revised.pdf>