Thanks Greg, this makes sense to me. Best, Keith On Jul 31, 2015, at 3:37 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Robin and All, I've gone back and re-read Section 5A (Community Mechanism As Sole Member Model). In this Section 5A.2, we are only discussing voting in the Community Mechanism. There is no discussion or participation (robust or otherwise) in the Community Mechanism; just votes. Thus there are no liaisons or advisors in the Community Mechanism. As such the language expressing this third model is inaccurate. The discussion and participation takes place in the Community Forum, prior to the SO/AC's deciding how to cast their votes. The Community Forum is described in Section 5A.3, and there is no mention in there of "liaison" OR "advisory" status. As stated there" Importantly, it would also create an opportunity for Advisory Committees that aren’t currently participating in the Community Mechanism to offer their insight, advice and recommendations on the proposed exercise of a community power. That said, we could modify the language like this: A third [minority] view is that there should be four votes each for the ASO, ccNSO and GNSO, and two votes for ALAC. The GAC, the SSAC and the RSSAC would participate fully in discussions in the Community Forum (5A.3) but would not vote in the Community Mechanism. I also think this title ("Influence in the Community Mechanism") is misleading. "Influence" is far too broad a word. Let's just call it "Voting in the Community Mechanism." I've said before that we needed to clarify the relationship between the Community Forum and the Community Mechanism, and we haven't really done so. This confusion is the fruit of that lack of clarity. Greg On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: 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@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@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<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@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@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org<mailto:WP1@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1 _______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org<mailto:WP1@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1 _______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org<mailto:WP1@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1