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 (mob)
Email: 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
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community