hi Ed, all Thanks for the reminder about the number - it was simply a mistake by me to put 7 not 8. There is a misconception in your note that I want to highlight. There aren't "five voting members" of the ICA. There aren't any votes in the ICA. The ICA doesn't make any decisions. It is a discussion forum only. In terms of ensuring that the points of view across the community are teased out in advance of the exercise of any community powers, broad participation is good. If we set the threshold for triggering an out of cycle face to face meeting high enough, then the chances of such a meeting and the associated costs remain low/unlikely. My nomination of five was indeed based on the CCWG approach. I don't mind where we land, but the balance is between cost and completeness (if SOs and ACs insist on equal support in such matters, anyhow). best Jordan On 27 July 2015 at 00:11, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:

Hi James,

Thanks for picking up on this. Indeed, we did agree on having up to eight representatives per SO/AC on the ICA. I liked that idea so much I gave a "good job" oral compliment to Alan and Steve in Paris for agreeing this number, one that best works for the GNSO. After all, the "5" we've agreed to for voting does not work well for us in the GNSO but we in the GNSO compromised there to help other communities. It was nice to see some reciprocity. I'm sure the number "7" is just an oversight that we can correct before we put this document out for public comment.

I believe in a robust, diverse and representative ICA. Hopefully we won't have to exercise the community powers very often but when we do I want the entire community to be represented in all it's multifaceted grandeur. One provision in our proposal would tend to discourage that: the level of support proposed for ICA members.

I'd like to propose that we extend funding to all ICA nominees, not just the 5 voting members per group. I believe people think the CCWG funding methodology, which our proposal copies, has worked: it has not, at least not for those of us in the noncommercial community. I can tell you stories of our Istanbul meeting where I had to walk for a half hour each night following our meetings through a red light district to get to my bed in a youth hostel. I'm not a youth but our NCUC budget, from which I received support for the meeting, is not large. My post midnight walk on day one (the legal subteam worked until close to midnight the first night) was particularly interesting.

I should note the difficulty our supported Member to the CCWG has had in getting to the CCWG meetings. For Istanbul, Robin had a flight cancellation and was unable to rebook in time to attend. For Paris her initial flight had mechanical problems and she arrived after an overnight flight and during our Friday morning meeting. We should learn two things from her story: 1) never book a flight Robin is on; it's just bad luck. :) and 2) relying upon one person to present a point of view of an entire component of our community at a meeting is not wise. With the serious nature of the issues the ICA will be considering all voices must be heard.

I should note it's not just noncommercial participants who may be experiencing funding problems in this regard. I've spoken to multiple commercial colleagues whose companies commitment will be reduced following the ACCT project. We need to ensure maximum participation in the ICA for this proposal to be guaranteed the diversity of views and backgrounds this entire construct needs if it is to be considered legitimate by all segments of society.

In summary: 1) We need to correct the number of ICA participants per group so that it reflects the maximum of "8" which, as James has pointed out, was the agreed position in Paris, and 2) in the interests of diversity and to ensure all voices are heard we need to support all members of the ICA, not just a select few. A two tiered nominee system should not be favoured.

In terms of budgetary impact costs can be trimmed elsewhere if need be. It makes no sense to provide full support, for example, to SO Council members and not to those nominees who will be participating in our highest deliberative, albeit nonvoting, body.

Thanks for considering,

Ed

------------------------------ *From*: "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net> *Sent*: Sunday, July 26, 2015 9:14 AM *To*: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "Drazek, Keith" < kdrazek@verisign.com>, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>, " wp1@icann.org" <wp1@icann.org>, "Accountability Cross Community" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>

*Subject*: Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

a) *Each ICANN SO or AC* would be asked to nominate between one and seven people to participate in the ICA – this is to ensure that there is at least some presence from each part of the community in the ICA, and some likelihood that its activities and discussions will include a wide range of perspectives.

I assume the 7 is a holdover from a previous version? It was very clearly agreed to be 8 in Paris.

-James Gannon

*From:* wp1-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alan Greenberg *Sent:* Saturday, July 25, 2015 7:55 PM *To:* Drazek, Keith; Jordan Carter; wp1@icann.org; Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

And a bunch of comments from me.

Alan

At 25/07/2015 09:03 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote:

Thanks Jordan, this looks very good to me. I’ve made a few proposed red-lined edits in the attached, supported by comments. Happy to discuss further.

Regards, Keith

*From:* wp1-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org <wp1-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter *Sent:* Friday, July 24, 2015 10:57 PM *To:* wp1@icann.org; Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

Hi all

I have taken the draft material from an older paper about the ICANN Community Assembly and pulled it into one place.

Please see attached and debate away! I've tried to be clear on its solely advisory nature, and have suggested that this would be the forum to use for the Public Accountability Forum suggestion made by advisors a while ago.

best, 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 *

Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK" Comments.docx" Content-Description: 5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.docx Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN" Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.docx"; size=32221; creation-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:37 GMT"; modification-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:03:13 GMT"

Content-Type: application/pdf; name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN" Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf" Content-Description: 5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN" Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf"; size=24126; creation-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:46 GMT"; modification-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:51 GMT"

_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1

-- 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 *

Can someone remind me why we need yet another talkshop? Other than to create funded travel opportunities? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6

On Jul 27, 2015, at 00:10, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:

Hi Jordan,

Thanks for the note.

I do realise we don't vote in the ICA. I should have been clearer that I was referring to voting in the later stage, the community mechanism (forgive me if I don't recall what we are currently branding it as). That, as proposed, gives 5 votes to each participating SOAC thus making it easier for those groups to select representatives based upon geography (not an issue in the GNSO). My apologies for not being clearer.

As we talk about the funding issue I do think it is important to point out that in the CCWG we had funded Members and, theoretically, had an unlimited number of unfunded participants. It's pretty clear why we couldn't fund all CCWG participants. In proposing that we fund all ICA nominees I'd suggest that we're copying the CCWG model in substance, even if the number is a bit bigger, as we'd be funding all those nominated by their SOAC's.

We already have comments on the draft document asking if the SOAC's need to predesignate their travelling nominees etc. We can get around that issue by funding all Nominees just as we funded all Members in the CCWG. It would also make the selection process a lot easier at the SOAC level: I'd hate on GNSO Council to have not only to select our nominees (which we would likely delegate to the SG's or Constituencies) but then have to determine at the Council level which 5 get funded and which 3 do not. I'd really like to take competition for resources out of the equation given the serious nature of the ICA's business.

I look forward to speaking with everyone about all of this in the next few days. Thanks, again, Jordan - it's always a pleasure to work with you.

Best,

Ed

From: "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 11:20 PM To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net> Cc: "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net>, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@verisign.com>, "wp1@icann.org" <wp1@icann.org>, "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

hi Ed, all

Thanks for the reminder about the number - it was simply a mistake by me to put 7 not 8.

There is a misconception in your note that I want to highlight. There aren't "five voting members" of the ICA.

There aren't any votes in the ICA.

The ICA doesn't make any decisions.

It is a discussion forum only.

In terms of ensuring that the points of view across the community are teased out in advance of the exercise of any community powers, broad participation is good.

If we set the threshold for triggering an out of cycle face to face meeting high enough, then the chances of such a meeting and the associated costs remain low/unlikely.

My nomination of five was indeed based on the CCWG approach. I don't mind where we land, but the balance is between cost and completeness (if SOs and ACs insist on equal support in such matters, anyhow).

best Jordan

...

On 27 July 2015 at 00:11, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote: Hi James,

Thanks for picking up on this. Indeed, we did agree on having up to eight representatives per SO/AC on the ICA. I liked that idea so much I gave a "good job" oral compliment to Alan and Steve in Paris for agreeing this number, one that best works for the GNSO. After all, the "5" we've agreed to for voting does not work well for us in the GNSO but we in the GNSO compromised there to help other communities. It was nice to see some reciprocity. I'm sure the number "7" is just an oversight that we can correct before we put this document out for public comment.

I believe in a robust, diverse and representative ICA. Hopefully we won't have to exercise the community powers very often but when we do I want the entire community to be represented in all it's multifaceted grandeur. One provision in our proposal would tend to discourage that: the level of support proposed for ICA members.

I'd like to propose that we extend funding to all ICA nominees, not just the 5 voting members per group. I believe people think the CCWG funding methodology, which our proposal copies, has worked: it has not, at least not for those of us in the noncommercial community. I can tell you stories of our Istanbul meeting where I had to walk for a half hour each night following our meetings through a red light district to get to my bed in a youth hostel. I'm not a youth but our NCUC budget, from which I received support for the meeting, is not large. My post midnight walk on day one (the legal subteam worked until close to midnight the first night) was particularly interesting.

I should note the difficulty our supported Member to the CCWG has had in getting to the CCWG meetings. For Istanbul, Robin had a flight cancellation and was unable to rebook in time to attend. For Paris her initial flight had mechanical problems and she arrived after an overnight flight and during our Friday morning meeting. We should learn two things from her story: 1) never book a flight Robin is on; it's just bad luck. :) and 2) relying upon one person to present a point of view of an entire component of our community at a meeting is not wise. With the serious nature of the issues the ICA will be considering all voices must be heard.

I should note it's not just noncommercial participants who may be experiencing funding problems in this regard. I've spoken to multiple commercial colleagues whose companies commitment will be reduced following the ACCT project. We need to ensure maximum participation in the ICA for this proposal to be guaranteed the diversity of views and backgrounds this entire construct needs if it is to be considered legitimate by all segments of society.

In summary: 1) We need to correct the number of ICA participants per group so that it reflects the maximum of "8" which, as James has pointed out, was the agreed position in Paris, and 2) in the interests of diversity and to ensure all voices are heard we need to support all members of the ICA, not just a select few. A two tiered nominee system should not be favoured.

In terms of budgetary impact costs can be trimmed elsewhere if need be. It makes no sense to provide full support, for example, to SO Council members and not to those nominees who will be participating in our highest deliberative, albeit nonvoting, body.

Thanks for considering,

Ed

From: "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net> Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 9:14 AM To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@verisign.com>, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>, "wp1@icann.org" <wp1@icann.org>, "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>

Subject: Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

a) Each ICANN SO or AC would be asked to nominate between one and seven people to participate in the ICA – this is to ensure that there is at least some presence from each part of the community in the ICA, and some likelihood that its activities and discussions will include a wide range of perspectives.

I assume the 7 is a holdover from a previous version? It was very clearly agreed to be 8 in Paris.

-James Gannon

From: wp1-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 7:55 PM To: Drazek, Keith; Jordan Carter; wp1@icann.org; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

And a bunch of comments from me.

Alan

At 25/07/2015 09:03 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote:

Thanks Jordan, this looks very good to me. I’ve made a few proposed red-lined edits in the attached, supported by comments. Happy to discuss further.

Regards, Keith

From: wp1-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 10:57 PM To: wp1@icann.org; Accountability Cross Community Subject: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

Hi all

I have taken the draft material from an older paper about the ICANN Community Assembly and pulled it into one place.

Please see attached and debate away! I've tried to be clear on its solely advisory nature, and have suggested that this would be the forum to use for the Public Accountability Forum suggestion made by advisors a while ago.

best, 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

Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK" Comments.docx" Content-Description: 5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.docx Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN" Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.docx"; size=32221; creation-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:37 GMT"; modification-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:03:13 GMT"

Content-Type: application/pdf; name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN" Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf" Content-Description: 5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN" Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf"; size=24126; creation-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:46 GMT"; modification-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:51 GMT"

_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1

-- 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 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Edward, Sorry if I missed this conversation in Paris (since I didn't have the funding to get to Paris), but can you explain how 8 is the number that works best for the GNSO? Thanks! Greg On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:

Hi James,

Thanks for picking up on this. Indeed, we did agree on having up to eight representatives per SO/AC on the ICA. I liked that idea so much I gave a "good job" oral compliment to Alan and Steve in Paris for agreeing this number, one that best works for the GNSO. After all, the "5" we've agreed to for voting does not work well for us in the GNSO but we in the GNSO compromised there to help other communities. It was nice to see some reciprocity. I'm sure the number "7" is just an oversight that we can correct before we put this document out for public comment.

I believe in a robust, diverse and representative ICA. Hopefully we won't have to exercise the community powers very often but when we do I want the entire community to be represented in all it's multifaceted grandeur. One provision in our proposal would tend to discourage that: the level of support proposed for ICA members.

I'd like to propose that we extend funding to all ICA nominees, not just the 5 voting members per group. I believe people think the CCWG funding methodology, which our proposal copies, has worked: it has not, at least not for those of us in the noncommercial community. I can tell you stories of our Istanbul meeting where I had to walk for a half hour each night following our meetings through a red light district to get to my bed in a youth hostel. I'm not a youth but our NCUC budget, from which I received support for the meeting, is not large. My post midnight walk on day one (the legal subteam worked until close to midnight the first night) was particularly interesting.

I should note the difficulty our supported Member to the CCWG has had in getting to the CCWG meetings. For Istanbul, Robin had a flight cancellation and was unable to rebook in time to attend. For Paris her initial flight had mechanical problems and she arrived after an overnight flight and during our Friday morning meeting. We should learn two things from her story: 1) never book a flight Robin is on; it's just bad luck. :) and 2) relying upon one person to present a point of view of an entire component of our community at a meeting is not wise. With the serious nature of the issues the ICA will be considering all voices must be heard.

I should note it's not just noncommercial participants who may be experiencing funding problems in this regard. I've spoken to multiple commercial colleagues whose companies commitment will be reduced following the ACCT project. We need to ensure maximum participation in the ICA for this proposal to be guaranteed the diversity of views and backgrounds this entire construct needs if it is to be considered legitimate by all segments of society.

In summary: 1) We need to correct the number of ICA participants per group so that it reflects the maximum of "8" which, as James has pointed out, was the agreed position in Paris, and 2) in the interests of diversity and to ensure all voices are heard we need to support all members of the ICA, not just a select few. A two tiered nominee system should not be favoured.

In terms of budgetary impact costs can be trimmed elsewhere if need be. It makes no sense to provide full support, for example, to SO Council members and not to those nominees who will be participating in our highest deliberative, albeit nonvoting, body.

Thanks for considering,

Ed

------------------------------ *From*: "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net> *Sent*: Sunday, July 26, 2015 9:14 AM *To*: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "Drazek, Keith" < kdrazek@verisign.com>, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>, " wp1@icann.org" <wp1@icann.org>, "Accountability Cross Community" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject*: Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

a) *Each ICANN SO or AC* would be asked to nominate between one and seven people to participate in the ICA – this is to ensure that there is at least some presence from each part of the community in the ICA, and some likelihood that its activities and discussions will include a wide range of perspectives.

I assume the 7 is a holdover from a previous version? It was very clearly agreed to be 8 in Paris.

-James Gannon

*From:* wp1-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alan Greenberg *Sent:* Saturday, July 25, 2015 7:55 PM *To:* Drazek, Keith; Jordan Carter; wp1@icann.org; Accountability Cross Community

*Subject:* Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

And a bunch of comments from me.

Alan

At 25/07/2015 09:03 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote:

Thanks Jordan, this looks very good to me. I’ve made a few proposed red-lined edits in the attached, supported by comments. Happy to discuss further.

Regards, Keith

*From:* wp1-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org <wp1-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter *Sent:* Friday, July 24, 2015 10:57 PM *To:* wp1@icann.org; Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

Hi all

I have taken the draft material from an older paper about the ICANN Community Assembly and pulled it into one place.

Please see attached and debate away! I've tried to be clear on its solely advisory nature, and have suggested that this would be the forum to use for the Public Accountability Forum suggestion made by advisors a while ago.

best, 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 *

Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK" Comments.docx" Content-Description: 5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.docx Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN" Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.docx"; size=32221; creation-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:37 GMT"; modification-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:03:13 GMT"

Content-Type: application/pdf; name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN" Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf" Content-Description: 5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN" Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf"; size=24126; creation-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:46 GMT"; modification-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:51 GMT"

_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1

_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1

Ed, Thanks for the explanation (and the kind words). I think we still have a significant problem here, based on the language in the document (and spurred on by your explanation). First, the language: *Each ICANN SO or AC* would be asked to nominate between one and seven [or eight] people to participate in the ICA – *this is to ensure that there is at least some presence from each part of the community in the ICA*, and some likelihood that its activities and discussions will include a wide range of perspectives. [emphasis added] The language in red is insufficient to accomplish the objective it states -- to *ensure* a presence from each part of the community. The mere fact that we give each SO and AC the opportunity to pick a number of representatives in no way "ensures" that there will be a presence from each part of the community. A given SO or AC could choose to have fewer representatives than "each part" of that community, or it could choose a larger number but still not distribute seats so that "each part" of the community is present. For instance, the ALAC could choose to have 3 representatives (even though there are 5 RALOs) or they could choose to have 8 representatives and give 2 each to 4 RALOs and none to the 5th. It would be easy for a majority of any SO or AC to squeeze out a minority. This would not violate the letter of this language, even though it would violate the spirit. Your explanation of why 8 was a good number for the GNSO specifically gave me pause: "Eight is easily divisible by two, the number of GNSO houses, and four, the number of GNSO stakeholder groups." This is a textbook example of the problem, for the simple reason that the 3 Constituencies that comprise the CSG are not divisible by 2. If only two seats are allocated to these 3 groups, one will be frozen out and will not be present. Any "community assembly" where one or more of these constituencies cannot be present fails to meet the most basic test for inclusion and thus fails as an organization. In order to avoid this outcome, whether in the GNSO, the ALAC or otherwise, the paragraph excerpted above must be modified as follows (text in red added): *Each ICANN SO or AC* would be asked to nominate between one and seven [or eight] people to participate in the ICA. *Each ICANN SO or AC shall nominate at least one person from each formal part of that SO or AC wishing to be represented* -- this is to ensure that there is at least some presence from each part of the community in the ICA, and some likelihood that its activities and discussions will include a wide range of perspectives. On a related note, I wouldn't hold my breath on GNSO structural reform.... I expect it will come eventually, but we need to plan for what is, not for what if. Greg On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:

Greg,

You were missed in Paris. I certainly hope if you decide to be part of the ICA you will be funded. The contribution you've made to our accountability effort and within the GNSO are almost beyond measure.

Eight is easily divisible by two, the number of GNSO houses, and four, the number of GNSO stakeholder groups. I would have been happy with one (we'd all have to work together to select the one), two, four, sixteen etc. I actually think eight is a pretty good number. It allows for enough diversity yet is small enough to work with.

I'll be up front and recognise there are a number of proposals floating around for GNSO structural reform. I hope there are some we agree on, I presume there are some we don't. We don't know the future but we do know the present. Hopefully eight gives us enough to work with regardless of the direction we go in.

I hope this was helpful but should note this was my reasoning only. I was not involved in the selection of the number presented. I did signal my approval, though, of the work done by others on this matter for the reasons indicated. As I said then, for the reasons indicated, "good job".

Best,

Ed

------------------------------ *From*: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Sent*: Monday, July 27, 2015 2:07 AM *To*: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net> *Cc*: "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net>, "Alan Greenberg" < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@verisign.com>, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>, "wp1@icann.org" <wp1@icann.org>, "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org

...

*Subject*: Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

Edward,

Sorry if I missed this conversation in Paris (since I didn't have the funding to get to Paris), but can you explain how 8 is the number that works best for the GNSO? Thanks!

Greg

On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:

...

Hi James,

Thanks for picking up on this. Indeed, we did agree on having up to eight representatives per SO/AC on the ICA. I liked that idea so much I gave a "good job" oral compliment to Alan and Steve in Paris for agreeing this number, one that best works for the GNSO. After all, the "5" we've agreed to for voting does not work well for us in the GNSO but we in the GNSO compromised there to help other communities. It was nice to see some reciprocity. I'm sure the number "7" is just an oversight that we can correct before we put this document out for public comment.

I believe in a robust, diverse and representative ICA. Hopefully we won't have to exercise the community powers very often but when we do I want the entire community to be represented in all it's multifaceted grandeur. One provision in our proposal would tend to discourage that: the level of support proposed for ICA members.

I'd like to propose that we extend funding to all ICA nominees, not just the 5 voting members per group. I believe people think the CCWG funding methodology, which our proposal copies, has worked: it has not, at least not for those of us in the noncommercial community. I can tell you stories of our Istanbul meeting where I had to walk for a half hour each night following our meetings through a red light district to get to my bed in a youth hostel. I'm not a youth but our NCUC budget, from which I received support for the meeting, is not large. My post midnight walk on day one (the legal subteam worked until close to midnight the first night) was particularly interesting.

I should note the difficulty our supported Member to the CCWG has had in getting to the CCWG meetings. For Istanbul, Robin had a flight cancellation and was unable to rebook in time to attend. For Paris her initial flight had mechanical problems and she arrived after an overnight flight and during our Friday morning meeting. We should learn two things from her story: 1) never book a flight Robin is on; it's just bad luck. :) and 2) relying upon one person to present a point of view of an entire component of our community at a meeting is not wise. With the serious nature of the issues the ICA will be considering all voices must be heard.

I should note it's not just noncommercial participants who may be experiencing funding problems in this regard. I've spoken to multiple commercial colleagues whose companies commitment will be reduced following the ACCT project. We need to ensure maximum participation in the ICA for this proposal to be guaranteed the diversity of views and backgrounds this entire construct needs if it is to be considered legitimate by all segments of society.

In summary: 1) We need to correct the number of ICA participants per group so that it reflects the maximum of "8" which, as James has pointed out, was the agreed position in Paris, and 2) in the interests of diversity and to ensure all voices are heard we need to support all members of the ICA, not just a select few. A two tiered nominee system should not be favoured.

In terms of budgetary impact costs can be trimmed elsewhere if need be. It makes no sense to provide full support, for example, to SO Council members and not to those nominees who will be participating in our highest deliberative, albeit nonvoting, body.

Thanks for considering,

Ed

------------------------------ *From*: "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net> *Sent*: Sunday, July 26, 2015 9:14 AM *To*: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "Drazek, Keith" < kdrazek@verisign.com>, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>, " wp1@icann.org" <wp1@icann.org>, "Accountability Cross Community" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject*: Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

a) *Each ICANN SO or AC* would be asked to nominate between one and seven people to participate in the ICA – this is to ensure that there is at least some presence from each part of the community in the ICA, and some likelihood that its activities and discussions will include a wide range of perspectives.

I assume the 7 is a holdover from a previous version? It was very clearly agreed to be 8 in Paris.

-James Gannon

*From:* wp1-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alan Greenberg *Sent:* Saturday, July 25, 2015 7:55 PM *To:* Drazek, Keith; Jordan Carter; wp1@icann.org; Accountability Cross Community

*Subject:* Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

And a bunch of comments from me.

Alan

At 25/07/2015 09:03 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote:

Thanks Jordan, this looks very good to me. I’ve made a few proposed red-lined edits in the attached, supported by comments. Happy to discuss further.

Regards, Keith

*From:* wp1-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org <wp1-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter *Sent:* Friday, July 24, 2015 10:57 PM *To:* wp1@icann.org; Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

Hi all

I have taken the draft material from an older paper about the ICANN Community Assembly and pulled it into one place.

Please see attached and debate away! I've tried to be clear on its solely advisory nature, and have suggested that this would be the forum to use for the Public Accountability Forum suggestion made by advisors a while ago.

best, 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 *

Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK" Comments.docx" Content-Description: 5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.docx Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN" Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.docx"; size=32221; creation-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:37 GMT"; modification-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:03:13 GMT"

Content-Type: application/pdf; name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN" Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf" Content-Description: 5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN" Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf"; size=24126; creation-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:46 GMT"; modification-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:51 GMT"

_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1

_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1

My responses are in-line below: On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:

*Greg*,

- *I'm saddened by the fact that you seem to want the CCWG to micromanage the affairs of SOAC's. I certainly don't*.

​GS: I'm not suggesting micromanagement, just a simple high-level rule that all formal groupings within a SOAC should be present, since this body is all about giving a voice to the community. If a formally recognized and organized group within a SOAC is voiceless -- left with its nose pressed against the windowglass, shivering in the cold -- that is a fundamental failure for this body and for this CCWG.

I think we still have a significant problem here, based on the language in the document (and spurred on by your explanation).

*- As I wrote my explanation was simply my own view of why the number eight works for the GNSO. That you disagree is expected. I'm finding a lot of groups in this process are using the CCWG in an aspirational way, trying to achieve goals through the Accountability process they have not been able to achieve through normal processes such as structural reviews. For those of us who are merely attempting to transition ICANN using the structures currently in place the documents language is fine. Obviously you appear to be looking to achieve a little bit more through the process. If not, there are many ways to divide our eight representatives, Greg, and I look forward to working with IPC's Counsellors to find a solution that maximises our diverse contribution to the ICA. *

​GS: I don't think this is at all "aspirational." Rather, it is "preservational." The IPC, BC and ISPCP each have seats at the GNSO Council table. So, putting aside whatever issues we may want to have examined in a structural view, being completely voiceless within the GNSO is not one of them. I am not looking to achieve any thing more in the process than that, which would be the appropriate way to transition using the structures currently in place. Therefore, the document's language is clear not "fine." It actually appears to me that you may be looking to achieve a little bit more through the process -- the further throttling down of voices from the IPC, BC and ISPCP. I hope that is not in fact the case. Any p rocess where these constituencies lose their distinct and direct voices is not "fine" to say the least. ​And may be very much less than fine. I'm not yet ready to pull the "minority statement" card, but if that's my last chance to "ensure" the IPC's presence in the ICA, I may be left with no choice. And that in turn could lead to other events further down the road, including puttingat risk the votes necessary to achieve approval by the GNSO.​

First, the language:

*Each ICANN SO or AC* would be asked to nominate between one and seven [or eight] people to participate in the ICA – *this is to ensure that there is at least some presence from each part of the community in the ICA*, and some likelihood that its activities and discussions will include a wide range of perspectives. [emphasis added] .

Your explanation of why 8 was a good number for the GNSO specifically gave me pause: "Eight is easily divisible by two, the number of GNSO houses, and four, the number of GNSO stakeholder groups." This is a textbook example of the problem, for the simple reason that the 3 Constituencies that comprise the CSG are not divisible by 2. If only two seats are allocated to these 3 groups, one will be frozen out and will not be present. Any "community assembly" where one or more of these constituencies cannot be present fails to meet the most basic test for inclusion and thus fails as an organization.

*- I believe in the bottom up process, Greg, and it's a shame you appear not to. *

​GS: I absolutely believe in the bottom-up process, and this CCWG is an exemplar of that process. Decisions we make here are bottom up decisions.​ Safeguarding voices that could be at risk is an important part of the bottom-up multistakeholder process. Any multistakeholder process that excludes recognized stakeholder entities isn't worthy of the name multistakeholder.

*That commercial interests in ICANN chose to create formal organisations within their stakeholder group is of little interest to me. *

​GS: This is either revisionist history of the first order or rank ignorance. In either case, it's a false statement based on falsehoods. The Intell​ectual Property Constituency, Business Constituency and Internet Service Provider and Connectivity Provider Constituency are all organizations that were created in ICANN since close to the beginning of ICANN's existence, and have existed ever since. For years, these 3 year constituencies were among the 6 in the GNSO, along with Registry, Registrar and Non-Commercial Users Constituency. In the last GNSO structural "reform," the latter 3 constituencies were (in essence) elevated to stakeholder groups, while the former 3 constituencies were shoehorned into a newly-created "Commercial Stakeholder Group" for the express purpose of reorganizing the GNSO Council, and creating an opportunity for more diverse non-commercial voices. It was never intended to wipe out the IPC, BC and ISPCP as independent, self-sufficient participants in the policy business of the GNSO, much less as distinct voices within ICANN (not to mention beyond). The CSG is essentially a shell. The work, the focus, the mission takes place almost entirely at the constituency level. So, we did not choose to create organizations within our stakeholder group. We accepted (with trepidation) the shell of a stakeholder group, understanding (or so we thought) that it would not be used to muffle or homogenize our distinct voices and organizations.

*Organise as you wish. That's bottom up. We in the noncommercial world have chosen to subdivide into fewer units. I'll note that our way is a bit more efficient and has less overhead. *

​GS: This is not the time or place for a dissection of the NCSG and its choices. However, I wil note that there are two formal units within the NCSG -- the NCUC and the NPOC -- whether you have "chosen to subdivide into fewer units" or not. I doubt that any differences in "efficiency" and "overheard" are significant; if they exist at all, I see no evidence in favor of your note.

*We have a wide variety of interests within our Stakeholder Group ranging, for example, from the Bibliotecha Alexandrina to the American Civil Liberties Union, from the British Red Cross to the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. We could subdivide into many constituencies based upon interest or belief but we find our way to be a bit more stimulating and productive. It's a much more interesting world when the folks from the Centre for Democracy and Technology have discussions with peers from the Heritage Foundation. You might try it. I'm sure it would be fascinating to hear conversations between people from Microsoft (member Intellectual Property Constituency) and people from Microsoft (member Business Constituency), all which could properly take place within the Commercial Stakeholders Group (or Microsoft's corporate headquarters). *

​GS: Our constituencies are not based on interest or belief but on fundamental concepts like identity, mission and scope​. That's more productive, in our view. We have quite a bit of stimulation within the IPC, and we always have the opportunity to have discussions with members of other constituencies and stakeholder groups. ​Indeed, I have talked to folks from the Centre for Democracy and Technology and from the Heritage Foundation (maybe even at the same time). A conversation between a Microsoft representative with an IP expertise who is at ICANN to represent the company as an intellectual property creator, owner and user, and a Microsoft representative with a general business and technology focus who is at ICANN to represent the company as a business user and technology provider might be fascinating (and they could invite over someone representing Microsoft as a Registry, while they're at it. But it has nothing to do with advancing the mission, scope and focus of those two constituencies (or the RySG).

In order to avoid this outcome, whether in the GNSO, the ALAC or otherwise, the paragraph excerpted above must be modified as follows (text in red added):

*Each ICANN SO or AC* would be asked to nominate between one and seven [or eight] people to participate in the ICA. *Each ICANN SO or AC shall nominate at least one person from each formal part of that SO or AC wishing to be represented* -- this is to ensure that there is at least some presence from each part of the community in the ICA, and some likelihood that its activities and discussions will include a wide range of perspectives.

*- Absolutely not. Your formulation presupposes that formal structure equates to separate diverse interests. It certainly does not. *

​GS: I have to strongly disagree with that. Each constituency is chartered with a significantly mission, purpose and focus, and each has a significantly different population. Indeed, I expect the ISP's sometimes feel like they were switched at birth and are now forced to live in a home with people who don't ​resemble them in the slightest. While the contrast is not quite so stark between the BC and the IPC, there are many ways in which the two groups are divergent and disagree on top of radically different focuses and purposes. So, in this case the presumption certainly holds true, and I would expect it would in other instances as well (the 5 RALOs, for instance).

*As noted previously some commercial groups are members of multiple CSG constituencies. Your proposal would give them two shots at influence, something again that seems to be the goal of many groups here. *

​GS: There are a few overlaps, but not many. As noted above, where there are entities that belong to more than one constituency, they join each in service of the mission and purpose and focus of that constituency. More importantly, they can only vote in one constituency.​ Furthermore, they are far outweighed in each constituency by members who do not overlap. This hardly sounds like "two shots at influence" to me. In any event, using this as an excuse to gag on or more of the three constituencies is absurd.

*I'll admit that's a problem in the noncommercial world as well: there are groups that are members of both the Noncommercial Users Constituency and the Not for Profit Operational Concerns Constituency. I'm sure you'll agree with me that double dipping should not be allowed, whether it be for commercial or noncommercial **interests. *

​GS: I would not characterize any of this as "double-dipping" and in any event, the rule that allows a vote in only one constituency controls for this to the extent necessary. Furthermore, if this is being used as a basis to muzzle NPOC as a separate voice​, I would disagree with it even more strongly.

*That's one of the reasons the GNSO House structure works: you might be a business with intellectual property concerns, or a nonprofit with operational and substantive concerns, but you are not both noncommercial and commercial. The House structure prevents double dipping.*

​GS: I would hardly say the House structure works, or that it prevents much of anything.​

*?Diversity within the GNSO is already achieved by our structure which gives commercial **interests, noncommercial interests, the registrars and the registries all separate and interconnected roles. *

​GS: This structure was designed for a specific purpose in the GNSO Council, not as some sort of maximum level of "diversity." Referring to the 3 constituencies as "commercial interests" distracts from, but does not take away the diversity of interests between the 3 groups.​

*Just as we in the noncommercial world will have to balance our various interests, perspectives and geographical locations (I realise that may not be a huge issue in the CSG with your predominately American membership; over 70% of our members are non American) when selecting our ICA representatives you in the CSG will have to balance your competing interests to ensure that you select diverse representation for the ICA, diversity based upon fact rather than formalistic artificial divisions. *

​GS: First, the "predominately [sic] American membership" is an outdated canard. I can't speak for the other two constituencies (though I think there are answers would be similar), but the IPC does not fit that description. A number of our members are international organizations with members from around the world; over half of these organizations are located outside North America. Of the corporate and individual members, the divide is about 50/50, but changing this has been a focus of the IPC; indeed, among our most recent member applications are applicants from India, Serbia, Ukraine, Turkey, Canada​ and Macedonia. More importantly, the 3 constituencies are not "formalistic artificial divisions." They are 3 discrete and independent working stakeholder organizations, each with a fundamentally different mission, focus and purpose. Each organization develops policy positions on its own, submits public comments on its own, discusses Working Group issues on its own and approaches ICANN matters on its own. When we choose to function as a unit, it is out of our own free will. The "fact" of diversity is reflected in the existence of the organizations and their different missions, and that diversity must be respected by ICANN and other ICANN structures. It is the CSG that is essentially a "formalistic artificial division," and forcing the 3 constituencies to muffle our differences, homogenize our positions into some unrecognizable muddle, and compromise our missions is perverse just because of the existence of that "formalistic artificial division" is perverse -- like some deranged medical experiment gone wrong. I for one do not intend to be part of Human Centipede III. *If you have trouble doing so you might want to talk to Microsoft (IPC.BC),

eBay (IPC/BC) or Com Laude./Valideus (IPC/BC) to see how they manage to pull together such "diverse" interests. As they are members of multiple CSG constituencies I'm sure they are experts in managing the "diversity" of the commercial world. *

​GS: At the risk of repeating myself, I will say that when these few overlapping members are in the IPC, they are subservient to the mission, purpose and focus of the IPC​, and they can only vote in the IPC or the BC (I note that you haven't cited any ISPCP overlaps, by the way....) The IPC has a purpose within ICANN and it is distinctly different from the purposes of the ISPCP or the BC. That there are a few entities that support both purposes in no way diminishes our focus.

*While you are doing that I'll be trying to help sort how to ensure representation on the ICA from the noncommercial world that pleases both the Heritage Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union. I realize it's a different challenge than pleasing Microsoft/Microsoft but it's one those of us in the noncommercial world will do our best to meet.*

​GS: We have diverse opinions and interests within the IPC, so we have the same challenge that you do. We don't need to please Microsoft at all; we need to please the intellectual property community, including the thousands of members of our organizational members.​ In any event, it's your choice to organize your tent as you see fit. You'll have your challenges and we'll have ours. Our challenge right now is maintaining an identity and voice in the face of those who would use a largely artificial construct and some fairly nimble sophistry to muffle us or send us out of the room entirely. You're in charge of your challenge -- we are not. On that basis alone, they are not at all comparable.

*I would also note that your proposal would effectively reduce the contracted parties to a very minor role (likely 1 member each ) in the ICA. From a practical perspective I do not think that is wise.*

​GS: I don't see this as a "minor role" -- what's important is getting a voice in the room, since this is a body where the ability to speak is paramount. I'll take the "minor role" of 1 member any day. Your support for multiple representatives of the contracted parties is duly noted.​

On a related note, I wouldn't hold my breath on GNSO structural reform.... I expect it will come eventually, but we need to plan for what is, not for what if.

*Exactly. And what is now in the GNSO is a structure that ensures diversity amongst the various components of our little part of ICANN: commercial, noncommercial, registrars and registries.*

​GS: All of a sudden you're a champion for the current GNSO structure. Well, I suppose it meets your group's needs. Again, when you say "commercial" I think "human centipede." Not something I want to support. ​

* As long as we don't change the proposed language in a way that reduces that diversity through top down imposition of artificial constructs I'm sure we'll be able to come up with a solution that ensures that the GNSO representatives on the ICA truly represent the diverse mosaic of our SO. *

​GS: Thankfully, what I'm proposing isn't top down, doesn't reduce diversity and removes rather than perpetuates artificial constructs, so I expect that the solution is already close at hand, if you would just accept it.​

*I'm sure we'll have many options and as a member of the GNSO Council I look forward to working with you, Greg, and your Council representatives to ensure that we achieve an outcome that is truly representative of our community. I'm sure the other SO and AC's will do so as well in ways and manners unique to each organisation.*

​GS: I hope we do as well, but that does not diminish the need for a bare minimum of guidance that truly ensures an outcome that is representative of each community. Until I see that assurance, I cannot be at all confident that I won't end up as part of the centipede.​

*Best,*

*Ed*

​Best regards,

​Greg​

​

Greg

On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:

...

Greg,

You were missed in Paris. I certainly hope if you decide to be part of the ICA you will be funded. The contribution you've made to our accountability effort and within the GNSO are almost beyond measure.

Eight is easily divisible by two, the number of GNSO houses, and four, the number of GNSO stakeholder groups. I would have been happy with one (we'd all have to work together to select the one), two, four, sixteen etc. I actually think eight is a pretty good number. It allows for enough diversity yet is small enough to work with.

I'll be up front and recognise there are a number of proposals floating around for GNSO structural reform. I hope there are some we agree on, I presume there are some we don't. We don't know the future but we do know the present. Hopefully eight gives us enough to work with regardless of the direction we go in.

I hope this was helpful but should note this was my reasoning only. I was not involved in the selection of the number presented. I did signal my approval, though, of the work done by others on this matter for the reasons indicated. As I said then, for the reasons indicated, "good job".

Best,

Ed

------------------------------ *From*: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Sent*: Monday, July 27, 2015 2:07 AM *To*: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net> *Cc*: "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net>, "Alan Greenberg" < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@verisign.com>, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>, "wp1@icann.org" < wp1@icann.org>, "Accountability Cross Community" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>

*Subject*: Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

Edward,

Sorry if I missed this conversation in Paris (since I didn't have the funding to get to Paris), but can you explain how 8 is the number that works best for the GNSO? Thanks!

Greg

On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:

...

Hi James,

Thanks for picking up on this. Indeed, we did agree on having up to eight representatives per SO/AC on the ICA. I liked that idea so much I gave a "good job" oral compliment to Alan and Steve in Paris for agreeing this number, one that best works for the GNSO. After all, the "5" we've agreed to for voting does not work well for us in the GNSO but we in the GNSO compromised there to help other communities. It was nice to see some reciprocity. I'm sure the number "7" is just an oversight that we can correct before we put this document out for public comment.

I believe in a robust, diverse and representative ICA. Hopefully we won't have to exercise the community powers very often but when we do I want the entire community to be represented in all it's multifaceted grandeur. One provision in our proposal would tend to discourage that: the level of support proposed for ICA members.

I'd like to propose that we extend funding to all ICA nominees, not just the 5 voting members per group. I believe people think the CCWG funding methodology, which our proposal copies, has worked: it has not, at least not for those of us in the noncommercial community. I can tell you stories of our Istanbul meeting where I had to walk for a half hour each night following our meetings through a red light district to get to my bed in a youth hostel. I'm not a youth but our NCUC budget, from which I received support for the meeting, is not large. My post midnight walk on day one (the legal subteam worked until close to midnight the first night) was particularly interesting.

I should note the difficulty our supported Member to the CCWG has had in getting to the CCWG meetings. For Istanbul, Robin had a flight cancellation and was unable to rebook in time to attend. For Paris her initial flight had mechanical problems and she arrived after an overnight flight and during our Friday morning meeting. We should learn two things from her story: 1) never book a flight Robin is on; it's just bad luck. :) and 2) relying upon one person to present a point of view of an entire component of our community at a meeting is not wise. With the serious nature of the issues the ICA will be considering all voices must be heard.

I should note it's not just noncommercial participants who may be experiencing funding problems in this regard. I've spoken to multiple commercial colleagues whose companies commitment will be reduced following the ACCT project. We need to ensure maximum participation in the ICA for this proposal to be guaranteed the diversity of views and backgrounds this entire construct needs if it is to be considered legitimate by all segments of society.

In summary: 1) We need to correct the number of ICA participants per group so that it reflects the maximum of "8" which, as James has pointed out, was the agreed position in Paris, and 2) in the interests of diversity and to ensure all voices are heard we need to support all members of the ICA, not just a select few. A two tiered nominee system should not be favoured.

In terms of budgetary impact costs can be trimmed elsewhere if need be. It makes no sense to provide full support, for example, to SO Council members and not to those nominees who will be participating in our highest deliberative, albeit nonvoting, body.

Thanks for considering,

Ed

------------------------------ *From*: "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net> *Sent*: Sunday, July 26, 2015 9:14 AM *To*: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "Drazek, Keith" < kdrazek@verisign.com>, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>, " wp1@icann.org" <wp1@icann.org>, "Accountability Cross Community" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject*: Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

a) *Each ICANN SO or AC* would be asked to nominate between one and seven people to participate in the ICA – this is to ensure that there is at least some presence from each part of the community in the ICA, and some likelihood that its activities and discussions will include a wide range of perspectives.

I assume the 7 is a holdover from a previous version? It was very clearly agreed to be 8 in Paris.

-James Gannon

*From:* wp1-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alan Greenberg *Sent:* Saturday, July 25, 2015 7:55 PM *To:* Drazek, Keith; Jordan Carter; wp1@icann.org; Accountability Cross Community

*Subject:* Re: [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

And a bunch of comments from me.

Alan

At 25/07/2015 09:03 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote:

Thanks Jordan, this looks very good to me. I’ve made a few proposed red-lined edits in the attached, supported by comments. Happy to discuss further.

Regards, Keith

*From:* wp1-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org <wp1-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter *Sent:* Friday, July 24, 2015 10:57 PM *To:* wp1@icann.org; Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly

Hi all

I have taken the draft material from an older paper about the ICANN Community Assembly and pulled it into one place.

Please see attached and debate away! I've tried to be clear on its solely advisory nature, and have suggested that this would be the forum to use for the Public Accountability Forum suggestion made by advisors a while ago.

best, 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 *

Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK" Comments.docx" Content-Description: 5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.docx Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN" Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.docx"; size=32221; creation-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:37 GMT"; modification-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:03:13 GMT"

Content-Type: application/pdf; name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN" Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf" Content-Description: 5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN" Community Assembly - v1.doc DRAZEK Comments.pdf"; size=24126; creation-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:46 GMT"; modification-date="Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:00:51 GMT"

_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1

_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1