The CCWG document states there is a lack of consensus on this issue. Avri claiming there is consensus because she thinks 16% or 19% "works for her" does not change the fact that the group analyzing the comments said there is lack of consensus on the issue. Our draft proposal had some ACs with less votes than SOs, and the comments still thought it was too much. Now there is proposal to basically count each SOAC as 1 vote - this does the exact OPPOSITE of what commenters were concerned with. We lose the granularity of views within the various SO's also with the new proposal to move to consensus instead of voting. So we took an issue in which there was lack of consensus and made the concern worse - not better. Even our lawyers said in the memo on this issue that is it still "voting" even if we chose to call it consensus. The framing in the 2nd draft proposal is better in my view than what some are moving towards now. When are we going to discuss the lack of consensus on this point? Thanks, Robin On Oct 21, 2015, at 2:50 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I went back to the statistics on the comments.
there one sees that only a minority of people commented on this and of that, the group was split in half.
Even when speaking of voting for GAC only 16% were against it. while 19% support GAC voting. and only 16% of those commenting wanted to peg voting on Board based proportions.
The only comment on the SSAC and RSSAC are that 16% that wnat thhe Board match, They are definitely a very small minority of the community.
That seems like a very small minority who care, let alone oppose.
And we should not see the comments as a vote for or against the proposal. Fewer people commented that those working on the proposals, and the opinions of the people participating in the process still count too. But even if it was a vote, only 16% had an voted against the GAC voting. Letting their advice count in the community consensus mechanism about the health and well being of ICANN seems to correspond to consensus position.
I think the consensus call is consistent with the comment received.
avri
On 21-Oct-15 09:52, Robin Gross wrote:
Resending, since my email is NOT posting to the list:
There is an open issue that we haven't yet dealt with (although people were asking to in our last session). According to the public comment analysis tool, there is no consensus on the role of Advisory Committees and there is concern in the community for dilution of authority and influence of SO community. Comments expressed support for treating SOs and ACs along the lines in the current board structure. This is beside the fact we seem to be moving away away from voting and toward consensus but about weight in decision making. We need to deal with the fact we don't have consensus on these points.
_The below statements are in our paper on "the model" which analyzed public comment:_
*•Lack of consensus on the voting allocations between SOs and ACs. Comments expressed concern for “dilution and authority and influence of SO community”. Most commenters on this issue expressed support for voting allocations along the lines of ICANN’s existing board structure.* * * *•Lack of consensus on the composition of the community within the Model (e.g. role of Advisory Committees). Comments indicated concern over the possible “duality” of the governmental role in the Model. Several comments expressed concern that providing votes to GAC will fail to meet NTIA requirements.*
We haven't gone through these papers which analyzed public comment yet.
So, WHEN are we going to address these concerns expressed in public comment on which there is no consensus in the community? Today?
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community