There is no consensus on the role of Advisory Committees according to our own public comment paper which analyzed public comment
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
Staff, Can you please check why some emails are not getting to the list? Best regards, León
El 21/10/2015, a las 9:52 a.m., Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> escribió:
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 _______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
Didn't she weite she used a different email address? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s On 21 Oct 2015, 09:57 +0100, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, wrote:
Staff,
Can you please check why some emails are not getting to the list?
Best regards,
León
El 21/10/2015, a las 9:52 a.m., Robin Gross<robin@ipjustice.org(mailto:robin@ipjustice.org)>escribió: Resending, since my email is NOT posting to the list:
[...]
Robin¹s email is the same as always. We are looking into the issue. From: <acct-staff-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 9:59 AM To: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org>, "wp1@icann.org" <wp1@icann.org>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Acct-Staff] [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] There is no consensus on the role of Advisory Committees according to our own public comment paper which analyzed public comment Didn't she weite she used a different email address? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s On 21 Oct 2015, 09:57 +0100, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, wrote:
Staff,
Can you please check why some emails are not getting to the list?
Best regards,
León
El 21/10/2015, a las 9:52 a.m., Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> escribió:
Resending, since my email is NOT posting to the list:
[...]
Hi, I received the initial mail sent by Robin on the accountability list and its also logged accordingly: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-October/00... Cheers! On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> wrote:
Robin’s email is the same as always. We are looking into the issue.
From: <acct-staff-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Dr Eberhard W Lisse < epilisse@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 9:59 AM To: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org>, "wp1@icann.org" <wp1@icann.org>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Acct-Staff] [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] There is no consensus on the role of Advisory Committees according to our own public comment paper which analyzed public comment
Didn't she weite she used a different email address?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On 21 Oct 2015, 09:57 +0100, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, wrote:
Staff,
Can you please check why some emails are not getting to the list?
Best regards,
León
El 21/10/2015, a las 9:52 a.m., Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> escribió:
Resending, since my email is NOT posting to the list:
[...]
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Dear All, There is no intention to provide voting power to ACs .What we discussing is that they continue to provide advice in favour or against a given issue that advice is understood to be given after reaching consensus . I do not understand some colleagues attempting to bring new diverting points Let us to find out how we could bring ourselves closer to each other. This type of comments do not help Regards Kavouss 2015-10-21 11:14 GMT+02:00 Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>:
Robin’s email is the same as always. We are looking into the issue.
From: <acct-staff-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Dr Eberhard W Lisse < epilisse@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 9:59 AM To: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org>, "wp1@icann.org" <wp1@icann.org>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Acct-Staff] [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] There is no consensus on the role of Advisory Committees according to our own public comment paper which analyzed public comment
Didn't she weite she used a different email address?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On 21 Oct 2015, 09:57 +0100, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, wrote:
Staff,
Can you please check why some emails are not getting to the list?
Best regards,
León
El 21/10/2015, a las 9:52 a.m., Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> escribió:
Resending, since my email is NOT posting to the list:
[...]
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
This is not a "new diverting point". Our very own public comment analysis document says there is no consensus on this issue and it needs to be explored. See below from our analysis. When will that discussion happen? Thanks, Robin CMSM Areas of Concern/Divergence Lack of consensus on whether the community should take decisions through formal voting or through establishing consensus. 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. Comments expressed concern over the extent of changes required in ICANN’s structure with the model. Proposal that enforceability for narrowed community powers could be provided for by binding arbitration to enforce fundamental bylaws, instead of the CMSM Model. Options for CCWG Consideration 1. Continue to evolve SMM to address specific points of concern raised in public comment, while maintaining “membership” model. 2. Explore how maximum legal enforcement can be achieved for desired community powers under an empowered designator model for comparison. Sub-Issues within the Models: Single Member and Single Designator Models a. Voting or consensus basis; i. Move away from “voting” and towards “consensus” for decision-making purposes within the community mechanism. ii. Consider community powers only may be exercised by the community as a whole, based on consensus or near consensus of the whole of it. iii. Consider option of consensus definition depending on absence of recommendations or advice against when using community powers. iv. Consider option of consensus definition depending on absence of recommendations or advice against. b. Reconsider role of the ACs in the Model’s community forum. Should some ACs be non-voting / decisional and rather, advisory only? c. Reconsider voting allocations between SOs-ACs to be more in-line with balance of appointments to ICANN board. d. Consideration of advice from those SOs and ACs opting out of the decision-making mechanism;• e. Maintaining balance of power to prevent capture of/by those opting-in to the decision-making mechanism;• f. Factoring in conflicts of interest and fiduciary or other responsibilities (such as public interest) into the decision-making design;• g. Ensuring accountability of the new structure to the broader community and the global public interest. On Oct 21, 2015, at 2:24 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All, There is no intention to provide voting power to ACs .What we discussing is that they continue to provide advice in favour or against a given issue that advice is understood to be given after reaching consensus . I do not understand some colleagues attempting to bring new diverting points Let us to find out how we could bring ourselves closer to each other. This type of comments do not help Regards Kavouss
2015-10-21 11:14 GMT+02:00 Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>: Robin’s email is the same as always. We are looking into the issue.
From: <acct-staff-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 9:59 AM To: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org>, "wp1@icann.org" <wp1@icann.org>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Acct-Staff] [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] There is no consensus on the role of Advisory Committees according to our own public comment paper which analyzed public comment
Didn't she weite she used a different email address?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On 21 Oct 2015, 09:57 +0100, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, wrote:
Staff,
Can you please check why some emails are not getting to the list?
Best regards,
León
El 21/10/2015, a las 9:52 a.m., Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> escribió:
Resending, since my email is NOT posting to the list:
[...]
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Please look at the part of the public comment analysis where this issue is discussed (last 3 pages of the attached). We are doing the exact opposite of what we heard in public comments on this issue. We haven't even discussed the issues in the paper. Thanks, Robin On Oct 21, 2015, at 1:52 AM, 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
Forwarding on Robin¹s behalf. From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 9:52 AM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, <wp1@icann.org> Cc: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org>, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org>, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Subject: There is no consensus on the role of Advisory Committees according to our own public comment paper which analyzed public comment 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 ³dilution and authority and influence of SO community². Most commenters on this issue expressed support for voting allocations along the lines of ICANN¹s 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 ³duality² 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
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
Agree with Avri Jorge -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. Oktober 2015 10:51 An: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] There is no consensus on the role of Advisory Committees according to our own public comment paper which analyzed public comment 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
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
participants (8)
-
Avri Doria -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Grace Abuhamad -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Kavouss Arasteh -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Robin Gross -
Seun Ojedeji