NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
Date:
Wed, 16 Jul 2014 18:18:19 +0000
Reply-To:
Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
Subject:
From:
Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version:
1.0
In-Reply-To:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (16 lines)
Arrrgh! 
These argument actually undermine my support for adding GACians. 

-----Original Message-----
> They made their request in London, it's in the communique as GAC advice to the board.

The board does not decide the composition of the coordination group, and the CG is independent of ICANN. icANN convenes the process it does not run it. Please remember that. Further GAC is only empowered to offer advice on public policy issues, and this is not a public policy issues (unless you are of the persuasion that anything that governments consider important is a "public policy issue."

>They've asked for five seats, they are a critical stakeholder group, on what grounds can we deny their request?   

On the grounds that 30 other stakeholder groups could make the same request? 
On the grounds that they don't understand the concept of a liaison and need to have the point made? 
Lotsa grounds. 

Again, I am still not opposing the request, due to support within NCSG and for practical reasons, but these arguments suck.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2