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

[Alan Greenberg]

Greg, I don't have the docs at hand, but my 
recollection is that AC/SO are allowed to make a 
decision according to their own rules. In the 
case of the ALAC, for an issue as substantive as 
using one of the powers, unless the result was 
clearly unanimous with all members participating, we would vote.

Indeed opinions could vary, but if there is even 
a feeling that the current method of "majority) 
(I vaguely recall it might be either of two 
counts) is in sufficient, then it certainly 
should be a discussion that the GNSO Council 
should have, and I don't recall such an issue being formally raised.

Alan


At 02/11/2015 11:45 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>​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 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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/20151103/bebeb8fe/attachment.html>