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

[Greg Shatan]

​Alan,

If the decision-making methodology specifies that the SO/ACs need to each
make their decisions through a consensus process, the GNSO Council voting
process would not seem to qualify.

As to whether the current system is "deemed quite satisfactory," opinions
can certainly differ.

Greg ​

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> Greg, I have to disagree with you on several counts.
>
> The GNSO voting mechanisms were indeed designed to make decisions based on
> a majority or supermajority. The current two-house voting thresholds were
> designed to emulate the simpler vote-counting in the last incarnation of
> the GNSO (I was one of the people who agonized over how to emulate those
> earlier simpler rules). Perhaps the current rule for "majority" is no
> satisfactory and needs to be changed, but if so, that is a decision that
> the GNSO can make.
>
> The GNSO uses a "majority" to decide to accept or reject new rules, and it
> has been used for a host of other types of decisions over the years.
>
> The methodology is deemed quite satisfactory to make decision related to
> the management of policy. But it is also what will be used in deciding if
> the GNSO will creation or support a petition for the new powers. And it
> will be the methodology used to decide to remove a GNSO director.
>
> The GNSO is not unique in having multiple positions amongst its members.
>
> I could go on...
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> At 01/11/2015 07:51 PM, Greg Shatan 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
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151102/35727587/attachment.html>