On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi, > > > However, I do not care that there are 5 votes, that is a different > issue. I personally preferred that each of the ACSO get 3 votes to > split up anyway they wanted. I wanted to keep it small. What I care > about is that in the application of powers, AC s and SOs should be on an > equal footing. I know that not everone belives in the theory of equal > footing. I am dedicated to it. > +1000 Thanks for stating very clearly what you are dedicated upon, i share such dedication as well and i hope others will develop such mindset. Regards > > The 5 powers have nothing to do with gTLDs. One could ask why the GNSO > should have a say on anything not to do with gTLDs. All things gTLD and > only things gTLD are within their tightly defined mission. That is not, > however, my issue. What I have an issue on is that in an system > architecture that has a balance of different perspectives, these sorts > of powers should be on an equal footing and that it is inappropriate for > one group to look at another and say they are less important that us. > Some argue that I carry this egalitarian ethic too far, but as far as I > can tell, ICANN needs it in order to be able to do the right thing. > > The argument that this decreases GNSO power is hard to understand. What > power does the GNSO have now in the area of 5 powers? The only time we > have power is when we all work together - we have seen that several > times this year. The powers are about the community working together to > overrule the board. The community cannot work together if one group > deems other groups as less important than themselves. > > So as I say, good topic for discussion. > > avri > > > > On 12-Aug-15 07:50, William Drake wrote: > > Really useful piece from Brenden, really working problem to fix. > > > > Bill > > > >> On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:25 AM, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask] > >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > >> > >> Excellent analysis from Brenden on one key flaw in the CCWG > >> Accountability's existing proposal - how the proposed SOAC "voting > >> weights" empowers some parts of the ICANN community (ACs) while > >> disempowering others (including the GNSO) as compared to the existing > >> balance of power in ICANN's structure. So this is one gaping hole we > >> need to fix in the draft proposal, which otherwise has recommended > >> some significant improvements (like the Independent Review process > >> and Reconsideration Request process). > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Robin > >> > >> On Aug 11, 2015, at 11:20 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > >> > >>> Dr. Brenden Kuerbis of IGP has developed a very important analysis > >>> of the CCWG’s proposed voting distribution model, which we need to > >>> take into account when developing our comments. > >>> Read it > >>> here: > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/08/11/ccwg-community-mechanism-threatens-to-upset-icann-balance/#comment-40415 > >>> > >>> Dr. Milton L. Mueller > >>> Professor, School of Public Policy > >>> Georgia Institute of Technology > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !