RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Nom Comm appointee roles

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Alan.  Helpful way to view the data. But I need help
understanding what the numbers meant in Olof's table, e.g., 2/1 - 1 or
2/2 - 0.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
        Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 5:27 PM
        To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        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.
        
        Alan
        
        
        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
                their name.
                
                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.
                
                Tony
                
                -----Original Message-----
                From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
                [ mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx> ] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
                Sent: 13 July 2008 18:09
                To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
                Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Nom Comm appointee
roles 
                
                
                Hi,
                
                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.
                
                a.
                
                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 
                > tie.
                > 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.
                >
                > Steve
                >
                > -
                >
                >