Thanks, Milton, for stating clearly the arguments for your opinion, 
while asking for wider comments.

On 7/12/2014 10:45 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> The coordination group will meet in London next week for its first f2f meeting. We've also had an initial conference call.
>
> I want to solicit your opinion on two immediate issues we will face.
>
> 1. GAC representation.
> Governments have been allotted 2 seats on the coordination group (CG). They want 5, one for each world region.
> ICANN has indicated that it will follow the CG's lead on whether to add additional seats or keep it at two.
As ICANN will follow the CG's lead, there is a clear basis for the next 
steps.
> I have an opinion on this, but want to see what others think.
> My opinion is that the GAC should not be allowed to add more members; the basic fallacy they are making is to see the CG as a voting body rather than seeing its members as liaisons to the specific communities represented.
The GAC's interest in numbers and regional representation is based on 
wrong assumptions about the function of the CG. The GAC should be 
informed about this.
> 2 seats allows them to keep tabs on what the CG is doing and carry that info back to the GAC and the GAC's reaction back to the CG. With 5 seats you are not only inflating the size of an already large committee but inflating the representation of a stakeholder group that, according to the NTIA mandate, is not supposed to play a controlling role in the outcome. Other perspectives welcome.
More important is that the NTIA transition mandate says clearly that 
governments and inter-government organizations cannot have a role in the 
outcome. The GAC should be reminded about this.

This restrictive mandate is, of course, a problem for the whole 
transition and future of the NTIA process. But as this is of a highly 
political nature, I do not think it can be dealt under the CG 
coordinating group.


Norbert Klein
Cambodia