Thanks for bringing this up, Edward. I am having a hard time accepting that ALAC and GAC should have an equal role as GNSO and CCNSO on these issues. GAC and ALAC currently have advisory roles and this proposal certainly evolves and elevates those roles in relation to the SO's, so I cannot accept it. GAC and ALAC should continue to have *advisory* roles, which I understand the GAC may be prepared to accept. But giving ALAC such an elevated representation (which overlaps with NCSG and CSG) is a problem in my view. If it goes out as "equal weights" to the ACs, I believe I'll be compelled to issue a minority report on this issue of weighted votes. Thanks, Robin On Jul 26, 2015, at 6:10 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
Hi everybody,
In reviewing document 5A2 I’ve come across what I believe is an inaccuracy that I hope we can to work together to correct. Actually, to be honest, the inaccuracy was discovered and reported to me by a member of the NCSG, which I represent on the GNSO Council. I’m referring to this paragraph, specifically that portion I have italicized:
-----
The community mechanism gives the bulk of influence on an equal basis between the three SOs for which ICANN deals with policy development and the At-Large Advisory Committee (which was structurally designed to represent Internet users within ICANN). If a new SO or another AC gains voting rights in the community mechanism at a later stage, they would receive an equal number of votes.
-----
The description of ALAC is simply not true.
I refer everyone to the ICANN Bylaws, article X, section 4(a), which states:
-----
The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is the primary organizational home within ICANN for individual Internet users. The role of the ALAC shall be to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users. This includes policies created through ICANN's Supporting Organizations, as well as the many other issues for which community input and advice is appropriate. The ALAC, which plays an important role in ICANN's accountability mechanisms, also coordinates some of ICANN's outreach to individual Internet users.
----
ALAC was structurally designed to “consider and provide advice” on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users”. It was NOT “structurally designed to represent Internet users within ICANN”.
Two inaccuracies:
1. ALAC was designed with to be the home of individual Internet users. Many Internet users are not individuals. ALAC was not “structurally designed” to be the “home” of any of them, it’s structural remit being limited to individual Internet users;
2. ALAC was not “structurally designed” to represent anyone. It was “structurally designed” to “consider and provide advice” to ICANN on behalf of individual Internet users.
To help illustrate the difference, I would refer you to section 1.1 of the Board approved Non-Commercial Stakeholder group Charter, which reads:
----
The purpose of the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) is to represent, through its elected representatives and its Constituencies, the interests and concerns of non-commercial registrants and non-commercial Internet users of generic Top-Level domains.
---
The NCSG was designed to have a representative function. It is accurate to state that the NCSG was “structurally designed” to represent both non-commercial registrants and non-commercial Internet users of generic Top-Level domains with ICANN. The same remit for it’s designated community cannot be attributed to ALAC.
As an advisory committee ALAC does not have the same functional design as the NCSG, a constituent part of the GNSO, in terms of representation at ICANN. ALAC’s function is to “consider and provide advice”. The NCSG’s function is to “represent”. They are different.
We need to be accurate in the information we put in the document we are creating for public comment. As has happened here, members of the community will pick up on inaccuracies and that will lead to credibility problems for our entire effort.
I suggest that the following language be substituted in document 52A:
---
The community mechanism gives the bulk of influence on an equal basis between the three SOs for which ICANN deals with policy development and the At-Large Advisory Committee (which was structurally designed to consider and provide advice on behalf of individual Internet users within ICANN). If a new SO or another AC gains voting rights in the community mechanism at a later stage, they would receive an equal number of votes.
---
I will note that this proposed language has been taken directly from the ICANN bylaws, modified only by a joining clause. It is accurate. The previous language was not.
I recognize that accuracy in description might cause some to question the appropriate role of some groups going forward. If so, it might be a conversation we need to have. At the moment, though, I’m just trying to make sure our documentation reflects reality rather than aspiration.
Thanks for considering,
Ed
From: "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 6:30 AM To: wp1@icann.org, accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Revised draft - Voting weights in community mechanism
Hi everyone
Here is an update of the previously not-updated text on voting weights. I am sorry that I haven’t got tracked changes to show you - it’s not much changed from what was circulated a few days ago (the redline staff draft that hadn’t actually been finished).
We still need to develop quorum and participation rules - I believe Bernie is working on a paper on this, for discussion next week.
This is on the agenda for WP1 on 27 July.
best Jordan
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community