Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Homework from WP1 call on Fri 30-Oct
Thanks, Steve. All, attached is an exploration of the option to provide 4 units to ASO, CCNSO, and GNSO + 2 units to ALAC, as mirrored on the existing board structure. The threshold percentages were taken from the 2nd draft proposal, and then just transposed into a pool of 14 weighted fractional units. Suggestions for improvements and comments on this proposal are much appreciated. (My additions are the comments in pink color in the attached document). Thanks, Robin On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
Attached is my “homework” assignment today — reflecting split voting option for each AC/SO to decide whether to exercise a community power. I updated just the Appendix that Jordan circulated for today’s call, adding explanations and a new column on the decision table (also shown below).
<Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png>
From: <wp1-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jordan Carter Date: Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:06 AM To: "wp1@icann.org" Subject: [WP1] Pls Read - Agenda for Meeting - WP1 on Fri 30 October at 18h UTC
Hi all
Our call is on Friday from 18h UTC, and may last up to two hours.
The proposed agenda items are as follows. PLEASE READ THIS AGENDA CAREFULLY as it sets out how I propose we run the meeting and the questions I propose we aim to answer.
1. Review of Agenda
2. Decision-making in the Community Mechanism This agenda item should look at decision-making, and seeing where the WP sits with key issues raised in the "Dublin Approach".
To prepare for this item I suggest reading the following papers: - Community Decision-Making: The Dublin Approach Working Paper - Public Comment Analysis - Voting in the community mechanism
If you have time, also have a look at the staff analysis of public comments - the "Model" and "Voting-Forum" tabs in particular.
Papers attached or linked below. I have not updated the Dublin Approach paper, but kept the very valuable comments, and moved Robin's added issues into separate rows in the Issues Table.
My suggestion is that we deal with the following specific questions, as they are the key changes in the model compared with what we presented in the Second Draft Proposal. We should for each question identify whether we have a consensus on them or whether we don't -- so we can advise the full CCWG of WP1's views.
a) Do we support the decision-making model (by consensus) replacing the voting approach?
b) Do we support only one view being expressed by each SO or AC?
c) Do we support an equal say for each participating SO or AC?
We also need to address the following:
d) In our Third Draft Proposal, which SOs and ACs do we propose should be participating? that is, do we respect the SSAC's desire not to, and do we take a view re RSSAC?
e) Based on our answer to d), do we need to make any changes to the numbers in the decision-making framework?
3. Other Work Required by WP1 I do not have a current list of work we need to do in the next fortnight but believe this will be clearer following next week's CCWG. I welcome staff or co-chairs' input on this at this point of the WP1 agenda, and of course suggestions from WP1 participants.
4. Any Other Business
Papers
I attach PDFs of the Dublin Approach paper and of the Public Comment report section on voting.
The Dublin paper Google Doc is at: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHZl_NvQ1WChatX8NT2Q1rQi4zQZgbrbAxrQSsH3...>
The full WP1 Public Comment is at: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56142506/2015-10-12-CCWG-WP...>
You may also find the staff analysis of Public Comments useful, which deals with voting specifically in a couple of the tabs (Model and Voting-Forum): <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54693137/PC2%20tool%20-%202...>
cheers Jordan
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz
A better world through a better Internet
<Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.pdf><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.docx>_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
Resending as some had a problem reading the file. - Robin On Oct 30, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
Thanks, Steve.
All, attached is an exploration of the option to provide 4 units to ASO, CCNSO, and GNSO + 2 units to ALAC, as mirrored on the existing board structure. The threshold percentages were taken from the 2nd draft proposal, and then just transposed into a pool of 14 weighted fractional units. Suggestions for improvements and comments on this proposal are much appreciated. (My additions are the comments in pink color in the attached document).
Thanks, Robin <alternative weights in Community Mechanism.docx>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
Attached is my “homework” assignment today — reflecting split voting option for each AC/SO to decide whether to exercise a community power. I updated just the Appendix that Jordan circulated for today’s call, adding explanations and a new column on the decision table (also shown below).
<Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png>
From: <wp1-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jordan Carter Date: Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:06 AM To: "wp1@icann.org" Subject: [WP1] Pls Read - Agenda for Meeting - WP1 on Fri 30 October at 18h UTC
Hi all
Our call is on Friday from 18h UTC, and may last up to two hours.
The proposed agenda items are as follows. PLEASE READ THIS AGENDA CAREFULLY as it sets out how I propose we run the meeting and the questions I propose we aim to answer.
1. Review of Agenda
2. Decision-making in the Community Mechanism This agenda item should look at decision-making, and seeing where the WP sits with key issues raised in the "Dublin Approach".
To prepare for this item I suggest reading the following papers: - Community Decision-Making: The Dublin Approach Working Paper - Public Comment Analysis - Voting in the community mechanism
If you have time, also have a look at the staff analysis of public comments - the "Model" and "Voting-Forum" tabs in particular.
Papers attached or linked below. I have not updated the Dublin Approach paper, but kept the very valuable comments, and moved Robin's added issues into separate rows in the Issues Table.
My suggestion is that we deal with the following specific questions, as they are the key changes in the model compared with what we presented in the Second Draft Proposal. We should for each question identify whether we have a consensus on them or whether we don't -- so we can advise the full CCWG of WP1's views.
a) Do we support the decision-making model (by consensus) replacing the voting approach?
b) Do we support only one view being expressed by each SO or AC?
c) Do we support an equal say for each participating SO or AC?
We also need to address the following:
d) In our Third Draft Proposal, which SOs and ACs do we propose should be participating? that is, do we respect the SSAC's desire not to, and do we take a view re RSSAC?
e) Based on our answer to d), do we need to make any changes to the numbers in the decision-making framework?
3. Other Work Required by WP1 I do not have a current list of work we need to do in the next fortnight but believe this will be clearer following next week's CCWG. I welcome staff or co-chairs' input on this at this point of the WP1 agenda, and of course suggestions from WP1 participants.
4. Any Other Business
Papers
I attach PDFs of the Dublin Approach paper and of the Public Comment report section on voting.
The Dublin paper Google Doc is at: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHZl_NvQ1WChatX8NT2Q1rQi4zQZgbrbAxrQSsH3...>
The full WP1 Public Comment is at: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56142506/2015-10-12-CCWG-WP...>
You may also find the staff analysis of Public Comments useful, which deals with voting specifically in a couple of the tabs (Model and Voting-Forum): <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54693137/PC2%20tool%20-%202...>
cheers Jordan
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz
A better world through a better Internet
<Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.pdf><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.docx>_______________________________________________ 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
Robin, I was not at this meeting, but if I had been, I would have reminded the group that the 7 board members on which you base this distribution is NOT the entire board. There are an additional 8 board members selected by the NomCom plus the CEO, and any new community mechanism cannot ignore that the SOs+ALAC are only part of the board. There may be multiple ways of addressing this, but it is clear to me that one cannot base any new power structure on what is less than half of the current board. That would put 6/7ths of the power in the SOs which only have 6/16 of the current board. I also note that you seem to have reverted to the pure voting percentages in the August proposal instead of the consensus model proposed in Dublin. Alan At 01/11/2015 06:10 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
Resending as some had a problem reading the file. - Robin
On Oct 30, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
Thanks, Steve.
All, attached is an exploration of the option to provide 4 units to ASO, CCNSO, and GNSO + 2 units to ALAC, as mirrored on the existing board structure. The threshold percentages were taken from the 2nd draft proposal, and then just transposed into a pool of 14 weighted fractional units. Suggestions for improvements and comments on this proposal are much appreciated. (My additions are the comments in pink color in the attached document).
Thanks, Robin <alternative weights in Community Mechanism.docx>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
Attached is my �homework� assignment today � reflecting split voting option for each AC/SO to decide whether to exercise a community power. I updated just the Appendix that Jordan circulated for today�s call, adding explanations and a new column on the decision table (also shown below).
<Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png>
From: <<mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org>wp1-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jordan Carter Date: Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:06 AM To: "<mailto:wp1@icann.org>wp1@icann.org" Subject: [WP1] Pls Read - Agenda for Meeting - WP1 on Fri 30 October at 18h UTC
Hi all
Our call is on Friday from 18h UTC, and may last up to two hours.
The proposed agenda items are as follows. PLEASE READ THIS AGENDA CAREFULLY as it sets out how I propose we run the meeting and the questions I propose we aim to answer.
1. Review of Agenda
2. Decision-making in the Community Mechanism This agenda item should look at decision-making, and seeing where the WP sits with key issues raised in the "Dublin Approach".
To prepare for this item I suggest reading the following papers: - Community Decision-Making: The Dublin Approach Working Paper - Public Comment Analysis - Voting in the community mechanism
If you have time, also have a look at the staff analysis of public comments - the "Model" and "Voting-Forum" tabs in particular.
Papers attached or linked below. I have not updated the Dublin Approach paper, but kept the very valuable comments, and moved Robin's added issues into separate rows in the Issues Table.
My suggestion is that we deal with the following specific questions, as they are the key changes in the model compared with what we presented in the Second Draft Proposal. We should for each question identify whether we have a consensus on them or whether we don't -- so we can advise the full CCWG of WP1's views.
a) Do we support the decision-making model (by consensus) replacing the voting approach?
b) Do we support only one view being expressed by each SO or AC?
c) Do we support an equal say for each participating SO or AC?
We also need to address the following:
d) In our Third Draft Proposal, which SOs and ACs do we propose should be participating? that is, do we respect the SSAC's desire not to, and do we take a view re RSSAC?
e) Based on our answer to d), do we need to make any changes to the numbers in the decision-making framework?
3. Other Work Required by WP1 I do not have a current list of work we need to do in the next fortnight but believe this will be clearer following next week's CCWG. I welcome staff or co-chairs' input on this at this point of the WP1 agenda, and of course suggestions from WP1 participants.
4. Any Other Business
Papers
I attach PDFs of the Dublin Approach paper and of the Public Comment report section on voting.
The Dublin paper Google Doc is at: <<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHZl_NvQ1WChatX8NT2Q1rQi4zQZgbrbAxrQSsH3tZQ/edit>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHZl_NvQ1WChatX8NT2Q1rQi4zQZgbrbAxrQSsH3tZQ/edit>
The full WP1 Public Comment is at: <<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56142506/2015-10-12-CCWG-WP1-SecondPC-FullAnalysis.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1444644438000&api=v2>https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56142506/2015-10-12-CCWG-WP1-SecondPC-FullAnalysis.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1444644438000&api=v2>
You may also find the staff analysis of Public Comments useful, which deals with voting specifically in a couple of the tabs (Model and Voting-Forum): <<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54693137/PC2%20tool%20-%2024%20SeptBTv2.xlsx?version=1&modificationDate=1443208173000&api=v2>https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54693137/PC2%20tool%20-%2024%20SeptBTv2.xlsx?version=1&modificationDate=1443208173000&api=v2>
cheers Jordan
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: <http://www.internetnz.nz/>www.internetnz.nz
A better world through a better Internet
<Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.pdf><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.docx>_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list <mailto:WP1@icann.org>WP1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list <mailto:WP1@icann.org>WP1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
Hi Alan, Yes, the NomCom is made of designators in the same pool, so it is taken into account. However, if you put the two board selection mechanisms (Nomcom and direct election) together into a weighted average, the Advisory Committees select 3.64 board members out of the total of 16, or 23%, just less than a quarter of the total. The SOs account for the remaining 77%. Even if the denominator is decreased to 15 (accounting for ICANN’s CEO on the board), the weighted average only increases to 24%, still less than a quarter of the total. The analysis has been done: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/08/11/ccwg-community-mechanism-threat... So this move in Dublin goes in the opposite direction of what we received public comments on. It also goes against our longstanding principle to not use this accountability process as a means to alter the relative power balance among the SO-ACs from the existing structure. As the numbers clearly show, this recent move is a major change in the extent to which it dilutes the SOs relative to the ACs. Thanks, Robin On Nov 1, 2015, at 4:38 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Robin, I was not at this meeting, but if I had been, I would have reminded the group that the 7 board members on which you base this distribution is NOT the entire board. There are an additional 8 board members selected by the NomCom plus the CEO, and any new community mechanism cannot ignore that the SOs+ALAC are only part of the board.
There may be multiple ways of addressing this, but it is clear to me that one cannot base any new power structure on what is less than half of the current board. That would put 6/7ths of the power in the SOs which only have 6/16 of the current board.
I also note that you seem to have reverted to the pure voting percentages in the August proposal instead of the consensus model proposed in Dublin.
Alan
At 01/11/2015 06:10 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
Resending as some had a problem reading the file. - Robin
On Oct 30, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
Thanks, Steve.
All, attached is an exploration of the option to provide 4 units to ASO, CCNSO, and GNSO + 2 units to ALAC, as mirrored on the existing board structure. The threshold percentages were taken from the 2nd draft proposal, and then just transposed into a pool of 14 weighted fractional units. Suggestions for improvements and comments on this proposal are much appreciated. (My additions are the comments in pink color in the attached document).
Thanks, Robin <alternative weights in Community Mechanism.docx>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
Attached is my �homework� assignment today � reflecting split voting option for each AC/SO to decide whether to exercise a community power. I updated just the Appendix that Jordan circulated for today�s call, adding explanations and a new column on the decision table (also shown below).
<Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png>
From: <wp1-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jordan Carter Date: Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:06 AM To: "wp1@icann.org" Subject: [WP1] Pls Read - Agenda for Meeting - WP1 on Fri 30 October at 18h UTC
Hi all
Our call is on Friday from 18h UTC, and may last up to two hours.
The proposed agenda items are as follows. PLEASE READ THIS AGENDA CAREFULLY as it sets out how I propose we run the meeting and the questions I propose we aim to answer.
1. Review of Agenda
2. Decision-making in the Community Mechanism This agenda item should look at decision-making, and seeing where the WP sits with key issues raised in the "Dublin Approach".
To prepare for this item I suggest reading the following papers: - Community Decision-Making: The Dublin Approach Working Paper - Public Comment Analysis - Voting in the community mechanism
If you have time, also have a look at the staff analysis of public comments - the "Model" and "Voting-Forum" tabs in particular.
Papers attached or linked below. I have not updated the Dublin Approach paper, but kept the very valuable comments, and moved Robin's added issues into separate rows in the Issues Table.
My suggestion is that we deal with the following specific questions, as they are the key changes in the model compared with what we presented in the Second Draft Proposal. We should for each question identify whether we have a consensus on them or whether we don't -- so we can advise the full CCWG of WP1's views.
a) Do we support the decision-making model (by consensus) replacing the voting approach?
b) Do we support only one view being expressed by each SO or AC?
c) Do we support an equal say for each participating SO or AC?
We also need to address the following:
d) In our Third Draft Proposal, which SOs and ACs do we propose should be participating? that is, do we respect the SSAC's desire not to, and do we take a view re RSSAC?
e) Based on our answer to d), do we need to make any changes to the numbers in the decision-making framework?
3. Other Work Required by WP1 I do not have a current list of work we need to do in the next fortnight but believe this will be clearer following next week's CCWG. I welcome staff or co-chairs' input on this at this point of the WP1 agenda, and of course suggestions from WP1 participants.
4. Any Other Business
Papers
I attach PDFs of the Dublin Approach paper and of the Public Comment report section on voting.
The Dublin paper Google Doc is at: < https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHZl_NvQ1WChatX8NT2Q1rQi4zQZgbrbAxrQSsH3... >
The full WP1 Public Comment is at: < https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56142506/2015-10-12-CCWG-WP... >
You may also find the staff analysis of Public Comments useful, which deals with voting specifically in a couple of the tabs (Model and Voting-Forum): < https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54693137/PC2%20tool%20-%202... >
cheers Jordan
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz
A better world through a better Internet
<Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.pdf><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.docx>_______________________________________________ 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
Good evening: I have some trouble following the arithmetic of all these processes, whereas I came away from Dublin persuaded by the Consensus Model. Notwithstanding, in view of the community powers to be exercised by the SD (aka CEV, vide Sidley), I think that it is most important for the credibility and stability of the transition that the SOs hold no more than half (50%) of the decision-making power. CW On 02 Nov 2015, at 17:04, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Hi Alan,
Yes, the NomCom is made of designators in the same pool, so it is taken into account.
However, if you put the two board selection mechanisms (Nomcom and direct election) together into a weighted average, the Advisory Committees select 3.64 board members out of the total of 16, or 23%, just less than a quarter of the total. The SOs account for the remaining 77%. Even if the denominator is decreased to 15 (accounting for ICANN’s CEO on the board), the weighted average only increases to 24%, still less than a quarter of the total. The analysis has been done: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/08/11/ccwg-community-mechanism-threat...
So this move in Dublin goes in the opposite direction of what we received public comments on. It also goes against our longstanding principle to not use this accountability process as a means to alter the relative power balance among the SO-ACs from the existing structure. As the numbers clearly show, this recent move is a major change in the extent to which it dilutes the SOs relative to the ACs.
Thanks, Robin
On Nov 1, 2015, at 4:38 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Robin, I was not at this meeting, but if I had been, I would have reminded the group that the 7 board members on which you base this distribution is NOT the entire board. There are an additional 8 board members selected by the NomCom plus the CEO, and any new community mechanism cannot ignore that the SOs+ALAC are only part of the board.
There may be multiple ways of addressing this, but it is clear to me that one cannot base any new power structure on what is less than half of the current board. That would put 6/7ths of the power in the SOs which only have 6/16 of the current board.
I also note that you seem to have reverted to the pure voting percentages in the August proposal instead of the consensus model proposed in Dublin.
Alan
At 01/11/2015 06:10 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
Resending as some had a problem reading the file. - Robin
On Oct 30, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
Thanks, Steve.
All, attached is an exploration of the option to provide 4 units to ASO, CCNSO, and GNSO + 2 units to ALAC, as mirrored on the existing board structure. The threshold percentages were taken from the 2nd draft proposal, and then just transposed into a pool of 14 weighted fractional units. Suggestions for improvements and comments on this proposal are much appreciated. (My additions are the comments in pink color in the attached document).
Thanks, Robin <alternative weights in Community Mechanism.docx>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
Attached is my �homework� assignment today � reflecting split voting option for each AC/SO to decide whether to exercise a community power. I updated just the Appendix that Jordan circulated for today�s call, adding explanations and a new column on the decision table (also shown below).
<Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png>
From: <wp1-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jordan Carter Date: Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:06 AM To: "wp1@icann.org" Subject: [WP1] Pls Read - Agenda for Meeting - WP1 on Fri 30 October at 18h UTC
Hi all
Our call is on Friday from 18h UTC, and may last up to two hours.
The proposed agenda items are as follows. PLEASE READ THIS AGENDA CAREFULLY as it sets out how I propose we run the meeting and the questions I propose we aim to answer.
1. Review of Agenda
2. Decision-making in the Community Mechanism This agenda item should look at decision-making, and seeing where the WP sits with key issues raised in the "Dublin Approach".
To prepare for this item I suggest reading the following papers: - Community Decision-Making: The Dublin Approach Working Paper - Public Comment Analysis - Voting in the community mechanism
If you have time, also have a look at the staff analysis of public comments - the "Model" and "Voting-Forum" tabs in particular.
Papers attached or linked below. I have not updated the Dublin Approach paper, but kept the very valuable comments, and moved Robin's added issues into separate rows in the Issues Table.
My suggestion is that we deal with the following specific questions, as they are the key changes in the model compared with what we presented in the Second Draft Proposal. We should for each question identify whether we have a consensus on them or whether we don't -- so we can advise the full CCWG of WP1's views.
a) Do we support the decision-making model (by consensus) replacing the voting approach?
b) Do we support only one view being expressed by each SO or AC?
c) Do we support an equal say for each participating SO or AC?
We also need to address the following:
d) In our Third Draft Proposal, which SOs and ACs do we propose should be participating? that is, do we respect the SSAC's desire not to, and do we take a view re RSSAC?
e) Based on our answer to d), do we need to make any changes to the numbers in the decision-making framework?
3. Other Work Required by WP1 I do not have a current list of work we need to do in the next fortnight but believe this will be clearer following next week's CCWG. I welcome staff or co-chairs' input on this at this point of the WP1 agenda, and of course suggestions from WP1 participants.
4. Any Other Business
Papers
I attach PDFs of the Dublin Approach paper and of the Public Comment report section on voting.
The Dublin paper Google Doc is at: < https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHZl_NvQ1WChatX8NT2Q1rQi4zQZgbrbAxrQSsH3... >
The full WP1 Public Comment is at: < https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56142506/2015-10-12-CCWG-WP... >
You may also find the staff analysis of Public Comments useful, which deals with voting specifically in a couple of the tabs (Model and Voting-Forum): < https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54693137/PC2%20tool%20-%202... >
cheers Jordan
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz
A better world through a better Internet
<Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.pdf><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.docx>_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I have continuing concerns at the overall level (this does not describe a consensus process) and specifically as regards the view of the GNSO (the GNSO does not have a process for consensus decision making; the process fails to recognize that the GNSO is an organization for gTLD policy-making (and the GNSO Council is a policy management body), and that for any other purpose the groups participating in the GNSO represent discrete stakeholder communities). Nothing I've read or heard has resolved these concerns. However, whether we view this as a consensus process or a proto-voting process, I'm still grappling with the "weighting" issue (which in turn leads to the "fractional" or "splitting" issue). In order to visualize the relative weights under 3 different scenarios, I prepared 3 pie charts, which I've put in the attached document. (Note that this reflects my concern that the stakeholder communities participating in the GNSO should be viewed separately for purposes other then gTLD policy-making. Note also that I've assumed that any "ccNSO" participation would need to take into account non-ccNSO ccTLDs, so I've reflected that in the pie chart labeling.) Apologies for some "rounding errors" (literally); but these do not affect the substance. Use these charts as you see fit.... I'm happy to revise, or prepare other charts, if need be. Greg On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Resending as some had a problem reading the file. - Robin
On Oct 30, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
Thanks, Steve.
All, attached is an exploration of the option to provide 4 units to ASO, CCNSO, and GNSO + 2 units to ALAC, as mirrored on the existing board structure. The threshold percentages were taken from the 2nd draft proposal, and then just transposed into a pool of 14 weighted fractional units. Suggestions for improvements and comments on this proposal are much appreciated. (My additions are the comments in pink color in the attached document).
Thanks, Robin <alternative weights in Community Mechanism.docx>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
Attached is my “homework” assignment today — reflecting split voting option for each AC/SO to decide whether to exercise a community power. I updated just the Appendix that Jordan circulated for today’s call, adding explanations and a new column on the decision table (also shown below).
<Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png>
From: <wp1-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jordan Carter Date: Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:06 AM To: "wp1@icann.org" Subject: [WP1] Pls Read - Agenda for Meeting - WP1 on Fri 30 October at 18h UTC
Hi all
Our call is on Friday from 18h UTC, and may last up to two hours.
The proposed agenda items are as follows. *PLEASE READ THIS AGENDA CAREFULLY* as it sets out how I propose we run the meeting and the questions I propose we aim to answer.
*1. Review of Agenda*
*2. Decision-making in the Community Mechanism* *This agenda item should look at decision-making, and seeing where the WP sits with key issues raised in the "Dublin Approach".*
*To prepare for this item I suggest reading the following papers:* *- Community Decision-Making: The Dublin Approach Working Paper* *- Public Comment Analysis - Voting in the community mechanism*
*If you have time, also have a look at the staff analysis of public comments - the "Model" and "Voting-Forum" tabs in particular.*
*Papers attached or linked below. I have not updated the Dublin Approach paper, but kept the very valuable comments, and moved Robin's added issues into separate rows in the Issues Table.*
*My suggestion is that we deal with the following specific questions, as they are the key changes in the model compared with what we presented in the Second Draft Proposal. We should for each question identify whether we have a consensus on them or whether we don't -- so we can advise the full CCWG of WP1's views.*
*a) Do we support the decision-making model (by consensus) replacing the voting approach?*
*b) Do we support only one view being expressed by each SO or AC?*
*c) Do we support an equal say for each participating SO or AC?*
*We also need to address the following:*
*d) In our Third Draft Proposal, which SOs and ACs do we propose should be participating? that is, do we respect the SSAC's desire not to, and do we take a view re RSSAC?*
*e) Based on our answer to d), do we need to make any changes to the numbers in the decision-making framework?*
*3. Other Work Required by WP1* *I do not have a current list of work we need to do in the next fortnight but believe this will be clearer following next week's CCWG. I welcome staff or co-chairs' input on this at this point of the WP1 agenda, and of course suggestions from WP1 participants.*
*4. Any Other Business *
*Papers*
I attach PDFs of the Dublin Approach paper and of the Public Comment report section on voting.
The Dublin paper Google Doc is at: < https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHZl_NvQ1WChatX8NT2Q1rQi4zQZgbrbAxrQSsH3...
The full WP1 Public Comment is at: < https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56142506/2015-10-12-CCWG-WP...
You may also find the staff analysis of Public Comments useful, which deals with voting specifically in a couple of the tabs (Model and Voting-Forum): < https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54693137/PC2%20tool%20-%202...
cheers Jordan
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz
*A better world through a better Internet *
<Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.pdf><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.docx>_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
Here's a revised chart -- please disregard the prior one. On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I have continuing concerns at the overall level (this does not describe a consensus process) and specifically as regards the view of the GNSO (the GNSO does not have a process for consensus decision making; the process fails to recognize that the GNSO is an organization for gTLD policy-making (and the GNSO Council is a policy management body), and that for any other purpose the groups participating in the GNSO represent discrete stakeholder communities). Nothing I've read or heard has resolved these concerns.
However, whether we view this as a consensus process or a proto-voting process, I'm still grappling with the "weighting" issue (which in turn leads to the "fractional" or "splitting" issue).
In order to visualize the relative weights under 3 different scenarios, I prepared 3 pie charts, which I've put in the attached document. (Note that this reflects my concern that the stakeholder communities participating in the GNSO should be viewed separately for purposes other then gTLD policy-making. Note also that I've assumed that any "ccNSO" participation would need to take into account non-ccNSO ccTLDs, so I've reflected that in the pie chart labeling.) Apologies for some "rounding errors" (literally); but these do not affect the substance. Use these charts as you see fit.... I'm happy to revise, or prepare other charts, if need be.
Greg
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Resending as some had a problem reading the file. - Robin
On Oct 30, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
Thanks, Steve.
All, attached is an exploration of the option to provide 4 units to ASO, CCNSO, and GNSO + 2 units to ALAC, as mirrored on the existing board structure. The threshold percentages were taken from the 2nd draft proposal, and then just transposed into a pool of 14 weighted fractional units. Suggestions for improvements and comments on this proposal are much appreciated. (My additions are the comments in pink color in the attached document).
Thanks, Robin <alternative weights in Community Mechanism.docx>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
Attached is my “homework” assignment today — reflecting split voting option for each AC/SO to decide whether to exercise a community power. I updated just the Appendix that Jordan circulated for today’s call, adding explanations and a new column on the decision table (also shown below).
<Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png>
From: <wp1-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jordan Carter Date: Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:06 AM To: "wp1@icann.org" Subject: [WP1] Pls Read - Agenda for Meeting - WP1 on Fri 30 October at 18h UTC
Hi all
Our call is on Friday from 18h UTC, and may last up to two hours.
The proposed agenda items are as follows. *PLEASE READ THIS AGENDA CAREFULLY* as it sets out how I propose we run the meeting and the questions I propose we aim to answer.
*1. Review of Agenda*
*2. Decision-making in the Community Mechanism* *This agenda item should look at decision-making, and seeing where the WP sits with key issues raised in the "Dublin Approach".*
*To prepare for this item I suggest reading the following papers:* *- Community Decision-Making: The Dublin Approach Working Paper* *- Public Comment Analysis - Voting in the community mechanism*
*If you have time, also have a look at the staff analysis of public comments - the "Model" and "Voting-Forum" tabs in particular.*
*Papers attached or linked below. I have not updated the Dublin Approach paper, but kept the very valuable comments, and moved Robin's added issues into separate rows in the Issues Table.*
*My suggestion is that we deal with the following specific questions, as they are the key changes in the model compared with what we presented in the Second Draft Proposal. We should for each question identify whether we have a consensus on them or whether we don't -- so we can advise the full CCWG of WP1's views.*
*a) Do we support the decision-making model (by consensus) replacing the voting approach?*
*b) Do we support only one view being expressed by each SO or AC?*
*c) Do we support an equal say for each participating SO or AC?*
*We also need to address the following:*
*d) In our Third Draft Proposal, which SOs and ACs do we propose should be participating? that is, do we respect the SSAC's desire not to, and do we take a view re RSSAC?*
*e) Based on our answer to d), do we need to make any changes to the numbers in the decision-making framework?*
*3. Other Work Required by WP1* *I do not have a current list of work we need to do in the next fortnight but believe this will be clearer following next week's CCWG. I welcome staff or co-chairs' input on this at this point of the WP1 agenda, and of course suggestions from WP1 participants.*
*4. Any Other Business *
*Papers*
I attach PDFs of the Dublin Approach paper and of the Public Comment report section on voting.
The Dublin paper Google Doc is at: < https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHZl_NvQ1WChatX8NT2Q1rQi4zQZgbrbAxrQSsH3...
The full WP1 Public Comment is at: < https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56142506/2015-10-12-CCWG-WP...
You may also find the staff analysis of Public Comments useful, which deals with voting specifically in a couple of the tabs (Model and Voting-Forum): < https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54693137/PC2%20tool%20-%202...
cheers Jordan
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz
*A better world through a better Internet *
<Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.pdf><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.docx>_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
Hello Greg, I am not sure I understand the reason for breaking the GNSO in the manner you presented, whats the actual goal? and if you want to really go the breaking path then you would break ALAC into 5 RALOs, break ASO into 5 RIRs, break ccTLDs into ccNSO/non-ccNSO etc. I think the point is that equal weight is required across the SO/AC in consensus observation towards exercising community powers. Regards On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Here's a revised chart -- please disregard the prior one.
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I have continuing concerns at the overall level (this does not describe a consensus process) and specifically as regards the view of the GNSO (the GNSO does not have a process for consensus decision making; the process fails to recognize that the GNSO is an organization for gTLD policy-making (and the GNSO Council is a policy management body), and that for any other purpose the groups participating in the GNSO represent discrete stakeholder communities). Nothing I've read or heard has resolved these concerns.
However, whether we view this as a consensus process or a proto-voting process, I'm still grappling with the "weighting" issue (which in turn leads to the "fractional" or "splitting" issue).
In order to visualize the relative weights under 3 different scenarios, I prepared 3 pie charts, which I've put in the attached document. (Note that this reflects my concern that the stakeholder communities participating in the GNSO should be viewed separately for purposes other then gTLD policy-making. Note also that I've assumed that any "ccNSO" participation would need to take into account non-ccNSO ccTLDs, so I've reflected that in the pie chart labeling.) Apologies for some "rounding errors" (literally); but these do not affect the substance. Use these charts as you see fit.... I'm happy to revise, or prepare other charts, if need be.
Greg
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Resending as some had a problem reading the file. - Robin
On Oct 30, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
Thanks, Steve.
All, attached is an exploration of the option to provide 4 units to ASO, CCNSO, and GNSO + 2 units to ALAC, as mirrored on the existing board structure. The threshold percentages were taken from the 2nd draft proposal, and then just transposed into a pool of 14 weighted fractional units. Suggestions for improvements and comments on this proposal are much appreciated. (My additions are the comments in pink color in the attached document).
Thanks, Robin <alternative weights in Community Mechanism.docx>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
Attached is my “homework” assignment today — reflecting split voting option for each AC/SO to decide whether to exercise a community power. I updated just the Appendix that Jordan circulated for today’s call, adding explanations and a new column on the decision table (also shown below).
<Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png>
From: <wp1-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jordan Carter Date: Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:06 AM To: "wp1@icann.org" Subject: [WP1] Pls Read - Agenda for Meeting - WP1 on Fri 30 October at 18h UTC
Hi all
Our call is on Friday from 18h UTC, and may last up to two hours.
The proposed agenda items are as follows. *PLEASE READ THIS AGENDA CAREFULLY* as it sets out how I propose we run the meeting and the questions I propose we aim to answer.
*1. Review of Agenda*
*2. Decision-making in the Community Mechanism* *This agenda item should look at decision-making, and seeing where the WP sits with key issues raised in the "Dublin Approach".*
*To prepare for this item I suggest reading the following papers:* *- Community Decision-Making: The Dublin Approach Working Paper* *- Public Comment Analysis - Voting in the community mechanism*
*If you have time, also have a look at the staff analysis of public comments - the "Model" and "Voting-Forum" tabs in particular.*
*Papers attached or linked below. I have not updated the Dublin Approach paper, but kept the very valuable comments, and moved Robin's added issues into separate rows in the Issues Table.*
*My suggestion is that we deal with the following specific questions, as they are the key changes in the model compared with what we presented in the Second Draft Proposal. We should for each question identify whether we have a consensus on them or whether we don't -- so we can advise the full CCWG of WP1's views.*
*a) Do we support the decision-making model (by consensus) replacing the voting approach?*
*b) Do we support only one view being expressed by each SO or AC?*
*c) Do we support an equal say for each participating SO or AC?*
*We also need to address the following:*
*d) In our Third Draft Proposal, which SOs and ACs do we propose should be participating? that is, do we respect the SSAC's desire not to, and do we take a view re RSSAC?*
*e) Based on our answer to d), do we need to make any changes to the numbers in the decision-making framework?*
*3. Other Work Required by WP1* *I do not have a current list of work we need to do in the next fortnight but believe this will be clearer following next week's CCWG. I welcome staff or co-chairs' input on this at this point of the WP1 agenda, and of course suggestions from WP1 participants.*
*4. Any Other Business *
*Papers*
I attach PDFs of the Dublin Approach paper and of the Public Comment report section on voting.
The Dublin paper Google Doc is at: < https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHZl_NvQ1WChatX8NT2Q1rQi4zQZgbrbAxrQSsH3...
The full WP1 Public Comment is at: < https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56142506/2015-10-12-CCWG-WP...
You may also find the staff analysis of Public Comments useful, which deals with voting specifically in a couple of the tabs (Model and Voting-Forum): < https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54693137/PC2%20tool%20-%202...
cheers Jordan
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz
*A better world through a better Internet *
<Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.pdf><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.docx>_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
_______________________________________________ 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!
Seun, I'm just reflecting reality. You are comparing applies and oranges. An Internet Registry is an Internet Registry, and an At-Large Organization is an At-Large Organization. The differences between the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies are far deeper and more fundamental than the differences in geography that define the RALOs and RIRs. (That's not to minimize the differing priorities that are driven by geography, but it's still far less significant than the differences between, e.g., a registry and a non-commercial stakeholder and an ISP.) I'll flip the question on its head -- what's the point in grouping together the various stakeholder groups and constituencies of the GNSO, except for the GNSO policy development function? Greg On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Greg,
I am not sure I understand the reason for breaking the GNSO in the manner you presented, whats the actual goal? and if you want to really go the breaking path then you would break ALAC into 5 RALOs, break ASO into 5 RIRs, break ccTLDs into ccNSO/non-ccNSO etc.
I think the point is that equal weight is required across the SO/AC in consensus observation towards exercising community powers.
Regards
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Here's a revised chart -- please disregard the prior one.
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I have continuing concerns at the overall level (this does not describe a consensus process) and specifically as regards the view of the GNSO (the GNSO does not have a process for consensus decision making; the process fails to recognize that the GNSO is an organization for gTLD policy-making (and the GNSO Council is a policy management body), and that for any other purpose the groups participating in the GNSO represent discrete stakeholder communities). Nothing I've read or heard has resolved these concerns.
However, whether we view this as a consensus process or a proto-voting process, I'm still grappling with the "weighting" issue (which in turn leads to the "fractional" or "splitting" issue).
In order to visualize the relative weights under 3 different scenarios, I prepared 3 pie charts, which I've put in the attached document. (Note that this reflects my concern that the stakeholder communities participating in the GNSO should be viewed separately for purposes other then gTLD policy-making. Note also that I've assumed that any "ccNSO" participation would need to take into account non-ccNSO ccTLDs, so I've reflected that in the pie chart labeling.) Apologies for some "rounding errors" (literally); but these do not affect the substance. Use these charts as you see fit.... I'm happy to revise, or prepare other charts, if need be.
Greg
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Resending as some had a problem reading the file. - Robin
On Oct 30, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
Thanks, Steve.
All, attached is an exploration of the option to provide 4 units to ASO, CCNSO, and GNSO + 2 units to ALAC, as mirrored on the existing board structure. The threshold percentages were taken from the 2nd draft proposal, and then just transposed into a pool of 14 weighted fractional units. Suggestions for improvements and comments on this proposal are much appreciated. (My additions are the comments in pink color in the attached document).
Thanks, Robin <alternative weights in Community Mechanism.docx>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
Attached is my “homework” assignment today — reflecting split voting option for each AC/SO to decide whether to exercise a community power. I updated just the Appendix that Jordan circulated for today’s call, adding explanations and a new column on the decision table (also shown below).
<Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png>
From: <wp1-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jordan Carter Date: Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:06 AM To: "wp1@icann.org" Subject: [WP1] Pls Read - Agenda for Meeting - WP1 on Fri 30 October at 18h UTC
Hi all
Our call is on Friday from 18h UTC, and may last up to two hours.
The proposed agenda items are as follows. *PLEASE READ THIS AGENDA CAREFULLY* as it sets out how I propose we run the meeting and the questions I propose we aim to answer.
*1. Review of Agenda*
*2. Decision-making in the Community Mechanism* *This agenda item should look at decision-making, and seeing where the WP sits with key issues raised in the "Dublin Approach".*
*To prepare for this item I suggest reading the following papers:* *- Community Decision-Making: The Dublin Approach Working Paper* *- Public Comment Analysis - Voting in the community mechanism*
*If you have time, also have a look at the staff analysis of public comments - the "Model" and "Voting-Forum" tabs in particular.*
*Papers attached or linked below. I have not updated the Dublin Approach paper, but kept the very valuable comments, and moved Robin's added issues into separate rows in the Issues Table.*
*My suggestion is that we deal with the following specific questions, as they are the key changes in the model compared with what we presented in the Second Draft Proposal. We should for each question identify whether we have a consensus on them or whether we don't -- so we can advise the full CCWG of WP1's views.*
*a) Do we support the decision-making model (by consensus) replacing the voting approach?*
*b) Do we support only one view being expressed by each SO or AC?*
*c) Do we support an equal say for each participating SO or AC?*
*We also need to address the following:*
*d) In our Third Draft Proposal, which SOs and ACs do we propose should be participating? that is, do we respect the SSAC's desire not to, and do we take a view re RSSAC?*
*e) Based on our answer to d), do we need to make any changes to the numbers in the decision-making framework?*
*3. Other Work Required by WP1* *I do not have a current list of work we need to do in the next fortnight but believe this will be clearer following next week's CCWG. I welcome staff or co-chairs' input on this at this point of the WP1 agenda, and of course suggestions from WP1 participants.*
*4. Any Other Business *
*Papers*
I attach PDFs of the Dublin Approach paper and of the Public Comment report section on voting.
The Dublin paper Google Doc is at: < https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHZl_NvQ1WChatX8NT2Q1rQi4zQZgbrbAxrQSsH3...
The full WP1 Public Comment is at: < https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56142506/2015-10-12-CCWG-WP...
You may also find the staff analysis of Public Comments useful, which deals with voting specifically in a couple of the tabs (Model and Voting-Forum): < https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54693137/PC2%20tool%20-%202...
cheers Jordan
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz
*A better world through a better Internet *
<Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.pdf><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.docx> _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
_______________________________________________ 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!
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
You are comparing applies and oranges. An Internet Registry is an Internet Registry, and an At-Large Organization is an At-Large Organization. The differences between the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies are far deeper and more fundamental than the differences in geography that define the RALOs and RIRs. (That's not to minimize the differing priorities that are driven by geography, but it's still far less significant than the differences between, e.g., a registry and a non-commercial stakeholder and an ISP.)
If you think geography is the major/only thing that makes the RIRs or AtLarge different then you are definitely missing the dept that exist in diversity.
I'll flip the question on its head -- what's the point in grouping together the various stakeholder groups and constituencies of the GNSO, except for the GNSO policy development function?
Good question and i will even flip it further while answering your question, whats the point of creating other stakeholder group other than the RySg and RrSG within GNSO if its not for policy reasons. Why do you want to make those stand-alone when many actors in those other groups do indeed wear another hats within ACs like AtLarge Regards
Greg
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Greg,
I am not sure I understand the reason for breaking the GNSO in the manner you presented, whats the actual goal? and if you want to really go the breaking path then you would break ALAC into 5 RALOs, break ASO into 5 RIRs, break ccTLDs into ccNSO/non-ccNSO etc.
I think the point is that equal weight is required across the SO/AC in consensus observation towards exercising community powers.
Regards
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Here's a revised chart -- please disregard the prior one.
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I have continuing concerns at the overall level (this does not describe a consensus process) and specifically as regards the view of the GNSO (the GNSO does not have a process for consensus decision making; the process fails to recognize that the GNSO is an organization for gTLD policy-making (and the GNSO Council is a policy management body), and that for any other purpose the groups participating in the GNSO represent discrete stakeholder communities). Nothing I've read or heard has resolved these concerns.
However, whether we view this as a consensus process or a proto-voting process, I'm still grappling with the "weighting" issue (which in turn leads to the "fractional" or "splitting" issue).
In order to visualize the relative weights under 3 different scenarios, I prepared 3 pie charts, which I've put in the attached document. (Note that this reflects my concern that the stakeholder communities participating in the GNSO should be viewed separately for purposes other then gTLD policy-making. Note also that I've assumed that any "ccNSO" participation would need to take into account non-ccNSO ccTLDs, so I've reflected that in the pie chart labeling.) Apologies for some "rounding errors" (literally); but these do not affect the substance. Use these charts as you see fit.... I'm happy to revise, or prepare other charts, if need be.
Greg
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Resending as some had a problem reading the file. - Robin
On Oct 30, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
Thanks, Steve.
All, attached is an exploration of the option to provide 4 units to ASO, CCNSO, and GNSO + 2 units to ALAC, as mirrored on the existing board structure. The threshold percentages were taken from the 2nd draft proposal, and then just transposed into a pool of 14 weighted fractional units. Suggestions for improvements and comments on this proposal are much appreciated. (My additions are the comments in pink color in the attached document).
Thanks, Robin <alternative weights in Community Mechanism.docx>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
Attached is my “homework” assignment today — reflecting split voting option for each AC/SO to decide whether to exercise a community power. I updated just the Appendix that Jordan circulated for today’s call, adding explanations and a new column on the decision table (also shown below).
<Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png>
From: <wp1-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jordan Carter Date: Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:06 AM To: "wp1@icann.org" Subject: [WP1] Pls Read - Agenda for Meeting - WP1 on Fri 30 October at 18h UTC
Hi all
Our call is on Friday from 18h UTC, and may last up to two hours.
The proposed agenda items are as follows. *PLEASE READ THIS AGENDA CAREFULLY* as it sets out how I propose we run the meeting and the questions I propose we aim to answer.
*1. Review of Agenda*
*2. Decision-making in the Community Mechanism* *This agenda item should look at decision-making, and seeing where the WP sits with key issues raised in the "Dublin Approach".*
*To prepare for this item I suggest reading the following papers:* *- Community Decision-Making: The Dublin Approach Working Paper* *- Public Comment Analysis - Voting in the community mechanism*
*If you have time, also have a look at the staff analysis of public comments - the "Model" and "Voting-Forum" tabs in particular.*
*Papers attached or linked below. I have not updated the Dublin Approach paper, but kept the very valuable comments, and moved Robin's added issues into separate rows in the Issues Table.*
*My suggestion is that we deal with the following specific questions, as they are the key changes in the model compared with what we presented in the Second Draft Proposal. We should for each question identify whether we have a consensus on them or whether we don't -- so we can advise the full CCWG of WP1's views.*
*a) Do we support the decision-making model (by consensus) replacing the voting approach?*
*b) Do we support only one view being expressed by each SO or AC?*
*c) Do we support an equal say for each participating SO or AC?*
*We also need to address the following:*
*d) In our Third Draft Proposal, which SOs and ACs do we propose should be participating? that is, do we respect the SSAC's desire not to, and do we take a view re RSSAC?*
*e) Based on our answer to d), do we need to make any changes to the numbers in the decision-making framework?*
*3. Other Work Required by WP1* *I do not have a current list of work we need to do in the next fortnight but believe this will be clearer following next week's CCWG. I welcome staff or co-chairs' input on this at this point of the WP1 agenda, and of course suggestions from WP1 participants.*
*4. Any Other Business *
*Papers*
I attach PDFs of the Dublin Approach paper and of the Public Comment report section on voting.
The Dublin paper Google Doc is at: < https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHZl_NvQ1WChatX8NT2Q1rQi4zQZgbrbAxrQSsH3...
The full WP1 Public Comment is at: < https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56142506/2015-10-12-CCWG-WP...
You may also find the staff analysis of Public Comments useful, which deals with voting specifically in a couple of the tabs (Model and Voting-Forum): < https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54693137/PC2%20tool%20-%202...
cheers Jordan
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz
*A better world through a better Internet *
<Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.pdf><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.docx> _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
_______________________________________________ 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!
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *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!
Thanks Greg for raising these issues and for the helpful charts. While we probably don't want to complicate things further, we might want to look at some of these issues on a more issue-based basis to determine appropriate levels of community support and distribution of decision making. For example, over 95% of the ICANN budget is funded by gTLD registrants, registrars and registries, shouldn't the GNSO have some greater weight in a decision to override the budget when such a decision could impact their fees directly? In decisions impacting gTLD registries, shouldn't the gTLD registries have at least the same voting weight as the ccTLD registries and not 1/4th the weight? Similarly, shouldn't the CCNSO have greater weight in a decision to amend Article IX of the ICANN Bylaws, which is limited to just how the CCNSO operates? Jon
On Nov 1, 2015, at 11:36 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Seun,
I'm just reflecting reality.
You are comparing applies and oranges. An Internet Registry is an Internet Registry, and an At-Large Organization is an At-Large Organization. The differences between the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies are far deeper and more fundamental than the differences in geography that define the RALOs and RIRs. (That's not to minimize the differing priorities that are driven by geography, but it's still far less significant than the differences between, e.g., a registry and a non-commercial stakeholder and an ISP.)
I'll flip the question on its head -- what's the point in grouping together the various stakeholder groups and constituencies of the GNSO, except for the GNSO policy development function?
Greg
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Hello Greg,
I am not sure I understand the reason for breaking the GNSO in the manner you presented, whats the actual goal? and if you want to really go the breaking path then you would break ALAC into 5 RALOs, break ASO into 5 RIRs, break ccTLDs into ccNSO/non-ccNSO etc.
I think the point is that equal weight is required across the SO/AC in consensus observation towards exercising community powers.
Regards
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Here's a revised chart -- please disregard the prior one.
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I have continuing concerns at the overall level (this does not describe a consensus process) and specifically as regards the view of the GNSO (the GNSO does not have a process for consensus decision making; the process fails to recognize that the GNSO is an organization for gTLD policy-making (and the GNSO Council is a policy management body), and that for any other purpose the groups participating in the GNSO represent discrete stakeholder communities). Nothing I've read or heard has resolved these concerns.
However, whether we view this as a consensus process or a proto-voting process, I'm still grappling with the "weighting" issue (which in turn leads to the "fractional" or "splitting" issue).
In order to visualize the relative weights under 3 different scenarios, I prepared 3 pie charts, which I've put in the attached document. (Note that this reflects my concern that the stakeholder communities participating in the GNSO should be viewed separately for purposes other then gTLD policy-making. Note also that I've assumed that any "ccNSO" participation would need to take into account non-ccNSO ccTLDs, so I've reflected that in the pie chart labeling.) Apologies for some "rounding errors" (literally); but these do not affect the substance. Use these charts as you see fit.... I'm happy to revise, or prepare other charts, if need be.
Greg
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: Resending as some had a problem reading the file. - Robin
On Oct 30, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
Thanks, Steve.
All, attached is an exploration of the option to provide 4 units to ASO, CCNSO, and GNSO + 2 units to ALAC, as mirrored on the existing board structure. The threshold percentages were taken from the 2nd draft proposal, and then just transposed into a pool of 14 weighted fractional units. Suggestions for improvements and comments on this proposal are much appreciated. (My additions are the comments in pink color in the attached document).
Thanks, Robin <alternative weights in Community Mechanism.docx>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
Attached is my “homework” assignment today — reflecting split voting option for each AC/SO to decide whether to exercise a community power. I updated just the Appendix that Jordan circulated for today’s call, adding explanations and a new column on the decision table (also shown below).
<Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png>
From: <wp1-bounces@icann.org <mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jordan Carter Date: Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:06 AM To: "wp1@icann.org <mailto:wp1@icann.org>" Subject: [WP1] Pls Read - Agenda for Meeting - WP1 on Fri 30 October at 18h UTC
Hi all
Our call is on Friday from 18h UTC, and may last up to two hours.
The proposed agenda items are as follows. PLEASE READ THIS AGENDA CAREFULLY as it sets out how I propose we run the meeting and the questions I propose we aim to answer.
1. Review of Agenda
2. Decision-making in the Community Mechanism This agenda item should look at decision-making, and seeing where the WP sits with key issues raised in the "Dublin Approach".
To prepare for this item I suggest reading the following papers: - Community Decision-Making: The Dublin Approach Working Paper - Public Comment Analysis - Voting in the community mechanism
If you have time, also have a look at the staff analysis of public comments - the "Model" and "Voting-Forum" tabs in particular.
Papers attached or linked below. I have not updated the Dublin Approach paper, but kept the very valuable comments, and moved Robin's added issues into separate rows in the Issues Table.
My suggestion is that we deal with the following specific questions, as they are the key changes in the model compared with what we presented in the Second Draft Proposal. We should for each question identify whether we have a consensus on them or whether we don't -- so we can advise the full CCWG of WP1's views.
a) Do we support the decision-making model (by consensus) replacing the voting approach?
b) Do we support only one view being expressed by each SO or AC?
c) Do we support an equal say for each participating SO or AC?
We also need to address the following:
d) In our Third Draft Proposal, which SOs and ACs do we propose should be participating? that is, do we respect the SSAC's desire not to, and do we take a view re RSSAC?
e) Based on our answer to d), do we need to make any changes to the numbers in the decision-making framework?
3. Other Work Required by WP1 I do not have a current list of work we need to do in the next fortnight but believe this will be clearer following next week's CCWG. I welcome staff or co-chairs' input on this at this point of the WP1 agenda, and of course suggestions from WP1 participants.
4. Any Other Business
Papers
I attach PDFs of the Dublin Approach paper and of the Public Comment report section on voting.
The Dublin paper Google Doc is at: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHZl_NvQ1WChatX8NT2Q1rQi4zQZgbrbAxrQSsH3... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHZl_NvQ1WChatX8NT2Q1rQi4zQZgbrbAxrQSsH3tZQ/edit>>
The full WP1 Public Comment is at: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56142506/2015-10-12-CCWG-WP... <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56142506/2015-10-12-CCWG-WP1-SecondPC-FullAnalysis.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1444644438000&api=v2>>
You may also find the staff analysis of Public Comments useful, which deals with voting specifically in a couple of the tabs (Model and Voting-Forum): <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54693137/PC2%20tool%20-%202... <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54693137/PC2%20tool%20-%2024%20SeptBTv2.xlsx?version=1&modificationDate=1443208173000&api=v2>>
cheers Jordan
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
+64-4-495-2118 <tel:%2B64-4-495-2118> (office) | +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz/>
A better world through a better Internet
<Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.16.33 PM.png><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.pdf><Dublin breakout on Community Decision - split votes v1.docx>_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org <mailto:WP1@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1>
_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org <mailto:WP1@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1>
_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org <mailto:WP1@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/> Mobile: +2348035233535 <> alt email: <http://goog_1872880453/>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
CW Mail -
Greg Shatan -
Jon Nevett -
Robin Gross -
Seun Ojedeji