RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Nom Comm appointee roles
- To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Nom Comm appointee roles
- From: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:12:49 -0400
Anyone familiar with the specific personalities of the Nomcom appointees
covered by your chart knows that one of them tends to vote similarly to
NCUC and another tends to vote with the business users.
So tell me: how is having Nomcom appointees on the Council any different
from having one more Noncommercial vote and one more Commercial vote?
To make the case for the specific value of a Nomcom presence, you would
have to show that Nomcom appointees _as a group_ coalesced with
different constituencies or groups of constituencies in strategic ways
to overcome deadlocks or push the outcome in a specific direction. I
don't see that.
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 5:27 PM
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Nom Comm appointee roles
ALthough I agree with Tony that putting labels on groups is likely to
lead to problemes in many cases, I don't agree with his conclusions. In
particular, I don't understand
"Please don't lose sight of the fact that one of the consequences of
weighted voting was that if any one of the IP, BC or ISPs ever voted
separately, then they all lost!"
If they voted separately, they the both could not have lost!
To try to understand the voting patterns better, I extracted the 28
non-unanimous votes from Olof's chart (only 27 of them were hi-lighted
in yellow) and colour coded them showing cases where there were split
votes within a constituency, and indicating if the constituency won (has
majority voting with the winning side).
Several interesting things. There are not a lot of split votes within
constituencies, the largest exception being the NomCom appointees. Also
interesting is that Registrars, despite their weighted votes, lost
almost half the time. I will let others reach their own conclusions.
The totals of who voted with who are a bit different from Olof's, but
not to a great extent. I'm sure there are some errors in this colour
coding, but interesting none-the-less.
At 13/07/2008 04:15 PM, tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx wrote:
For my part I've always struggled with the notion that the nomcom should
ever contemplate that their role is as a 'tie breaker' (where did that
come from?) I don't believe it was ever posited that way when the
initial approach was floated. All constituencies have equal ability to
be a tie breaker.
If that is the way this is now envisaged then both the nominating
process and the criteria needs drastic amendment. Perhaps there's a case
that the noncom ONLY vote whenever there is a tie on a major issues?
However I also struggle with the notion that the other parts of the GNSO
fall in to two clear categories; contracted parties and consumers.
Sticking broad labels on those groups is one of the biggest
misconceptions within ICANN. So far the IPC, BC and ISPs have been
called 'providers', 'IP Interest Group' and now linking with both the
NCUC and ALAC we all become 'consumers'. Its also worth saying that not
only have these terms been adopted by some parties when it suits their
interest, they're also dropped just as quickly when it suits as well.
The change in terminology used within the BCG process being a prime
example. The term 'providers' was dropped liked a hot brick after it was
repeatedly pointed out that the ISPs even have the word 'provider' in
The first step is to recognise there are separate and diverse grouping
within the GNSO. Attempting to put all the Constituencies in to two
groups except for the nomcom or 'the tie breakers' is a nonsense and it
isn't supported by the data either as Steve points out. Please don't
lose sight of the fact that one of the consequences of weighted voting
was that if any one of the IP, BC or ISPs ever voted separately, then
they all lost! Hardly an incentive, unless there was a very strong case
to do so.
<mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx> ] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: 13 July 2008 18:09
Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Nom Comm appointee roles
I do not agree with the conclusions you draw from your analysis.
The main point is the nomcom provides the possibility for a tie breaker
should the vote break along the contracted party - consumer lines. And
I believe this is necessary.
I also do not agree the it is sufficient to give the nomcom's outside
voice a seat at the table while disenfranchising that voice. I believe
that vote is critical in keeping the policy process from becoming, or
looking like, a trust of insiders who are constantly trading advantage.
I also believe that the logic that dictates that outside voices are
legally necessary in the Board's decisions also pertains in the policy
recommendation stage - especially since the GNSO can force by its
supermajority, the board into a supermajority voting requirement.
On 11 Jul 2008, at 18:05, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
> Reflecting on our useful discussion yesterday re role of Nom Comm
> appointees to the GNSO council:
> One reason given was a tie-breaking role in voting. I went back and
> looked at the "GNSO Council voting patterns 2005-2008" document
> prepared by staff in Paris. Of the "28 voting events taken by roll
> call and showing identifiable votes per constituency, where the
> outcome was not unanimous" (these were the shaded entries in the
> document), I did not find any which would have been tie votes but for
> the votes cast by Nom Comm appointees.
> I did find two votes out of 28 in which (if I counted correctly) the
> Nom Comm appointee votes created a 2/3 majority of those voting which
> would not otherwise have existed. Neither of these involved a
> recommendation being sent to the Board where the presence of a 2/3
> supermajority on the Council would have made a difference. One was a
> vote on whether to send a letter regarding travel funding (3 Jan 08);
> the other was a vote on one of the two proposed formulations of the
> purpose of Whois, which was intended to guide future work on policy
> development but not (at that
> point) to be sent to the Board (12 April 06).
> It is always possible that councillors changed the votes they would
> otherwise have cast to avoid having the Nom Comm appointees break a
> I don't know any examples of that; perhaps some of the council members
> on this list do.
> I found the council voting patterns chart a bit hard to follow (you
> need to double the votes in the first two columns to account for
> weighted voting, abstentions are not noted, etc.) and I certainly
> might have miscounted, so I would welcome anyone else checking my
> work, but what I saw suggests that the tie-breaking role of Nom Comm
> appointees has not been significant, at least for the past four years.
> This leaves the role of these appointees in "bringing new voices" to
> the table, or in providing expertise that the Council needs but that
> constituency reps cannot provide. As we discussed to some extent
> yesterday, if these roles are important, we should consider whether
> they can be fulfilled in other ways, such as through representation of
> At-Large on the Council, or through appointed experts who could serve
> on the council in a non-voting capacity.