Hi Jordan and Everyone,
Many thanks for sharing this text on voting weights. While the SSAC is still considering what form its participation in the Community Mechanism will take, I think your proposal allows for all options and Lyman and I both support this wording. In particular, we agree with the proposition of equal votes for all current and future SO/ACs.
One other point...Near the end, the document says "[t]hat is, block voting (casting all votes in favour or against the use of a power, even where there are diverse views) is not encouraged." That wording strongly implies that casting all votes in a single block is *discouraged*, even if the views of all parts of an SO or AC happen to be aligned on a particular issue. We don't think that's what you mean, and suggest that the intention might better be expressed by "[t]hat is, where diverse views within an SO or AC exist even after consultation and discussion, that diversity should be 'passed through' in the vote distribution, rather than resolved into a consensus 'block vote' (casting all votes in favour or against the use of a power)."
Cheers, Julie and Lyman
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
InternetNZ04 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.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community