[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: CCWG - recs 1,2 and 11
sdelbianco at netchoice.org
Fri Feb 12 19:02:19 UTC 2016
On voting: Beginning in Dublin, CCWG moved away from making decisions my supermajority voting.
Instead, the empowered community will determine consensus by meeting thresholds of support in the absence of multiple objections.
This is markedly different than determining outcomes by tallying votes to see who got the most.
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
Date: Friday, February 12, 2016 at 1:46 PM
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>>
Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: CCWG - recs 1,2 and 11
When I look up the definition of “voting” in order to understand if SO-ACs are doing it through exercise of community power, it seems pretty clear we will be “voting”. SO-ACs will be expressing formal opinions in response to a proposed decision. Putting the word “consensus” in there just doesn’t negate the core meaning of the words we are using. And we aren't going to trick the NTIA and Congress into believing the ordinary dictionary definition of words should not apply to their requirements. The sooner we put together a proposal that *will* be accepted by the powers-that-be, the sooner we can get this process over with.
Merriam Webster<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vote> defines the term “voting” to mean “:
1a : a usually formal expression of opinion or will in response to a proposed decision; especially : one given as an indication of approval or disapproval of a proposal, motion, or candidate for officeb : the total number of such expressions of opinion made known at a single time (as at an election)c : an expression of opinion or preference that resembles a voted : ballot<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ballot> 1
2: the collective opinion or verdict of a body of persons expressed by voting
3: the right to cast a vote; specifically : the right of suffrage : franchise<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/franchise>
4a : the act or process of voting <brought the question to a vote>b : a method of voting
5: a formal expression of a wish, will, or choice voted<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/voted> by a meeting
Oxford defines “voting” as:<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/vote>
1.0 A formal indication<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/indication#indication__2> of a choice<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/choice#choice__2> between two or more candidates or courses of action, expressed typically through a ballot<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/ballot#ballot__7> or a show of hands<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/show#show__66> or by voice.
1.1An act of expressing a formal indication<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/indication#indication__2> of choice<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/choice#choice__18>:they are ready to put it to a vote
1.2(the vote) The choice<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/choice#choice__2> expressed collectively by a body of electors<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/elector#elector__2> or by a specified group:the Republican vote in Florida<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/Florida#Florida__2>
1.3(the vote) The right to indicate a choice<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/choice#choice__2> in an election.
On Feb 12, 2016, at 6:35 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 01:18:11PM +0000, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
In fact, the decisional model does expressly contemplate voting, i.e. tallying support or opposition among the decisional participants with specified thresholds, to climb the escalation ladder and exercise community powers.
I am really leery of having a discussion in which we parse the
meanings of "consensus" and "voting", but I think there is at least an
open argument that the escalation ladder and so on amounts to a way to
determine community consensus. Moreover, the specification of
thesholds are, after all, of the constituent SOs and ACs rather than
of individual voters. Having already long ago decided that decision
making in ICANN would be along constituency-defined lines (rather than
the unitary "community" that we see in, say, the IETF), it seems
self-evident that one needs a way to ensure that one interest group
can't block everyone else. So regardless of whether one thinks that
this is some form of voting, it's still a mechanism to find consensus.
Moreover, the GAC is now a participant in the Empowered Community (albeit with the carve out) and the advisory role has been altered, not maintained, by defining GAC consensus and elevating the Board threshold to reject GAC consensus advice to 60 percent. These are significant changes.
But there is a difference between "letting governments participate"
and "letting governments decide". The proposal does the former -- I
think correctly, because they too are part of the global community.
It does not do the latter -- again, correctly, and in line with the
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community