Hi,

Yeah…, 5 out of 30 wouldn’t make GAC a super power, but what regional organisational structure are you referring to? Is there a regional organisational structure within the GAC (similar to the RALOs of the At-Large community for example)? I am not aware of one. There is a chair and there are vice chairs. The vice chairs are meant to (to the extent possible) represent the geographic diversity of the GAC members. This, as far as I can tell, excludes nation states that are not members of the GAC.

So although 5 out of 30 won’t necessarily be detrimental to the outcome of the group, I see no practical reason why they need 3 additional reps. They obviously feel this need exists. The reason they provided doesn’t seem to make sense (to me at least), and has nothing to do with the ration of govt. to non-govt. members of the group.

Before rushing to comply with their request, I would suggest that further clarification of their reasoning be provided.

Thanks.

Amr

On Jul 14, 2014, at 5:13 AM, Adam <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Jul 14, 2014, at 7:20 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
>> I agree that we should resist GAC demands to obtain preferential treatment or disproportionate make-up of this coordination group.
> 
> 
> Disagree very strongly.  5 members from what would become a 30 strong group is not disproportionate.  If "multi-stakeholder" is to have any meaning then for one of the core representative groups to only have 2 members from 27 is ridiculous.
> 
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-06-06-en#annex-one>
> 
> 5 of 30 would not in anyway cause government to be come some super power, but it would allow them to select representatives to reflect their regional organizational structure.  
> 
> If we want this process to work, then preparing for  the first meeting by welcoming five members from GAC would be a good start.
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
>> I'd leave it at 2 members from GAC in the coordination group (unless GNSO and especially noncommercial users) are provided additional positions in the group).
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>> On Jul 12, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Dan, Milton and all,
>>> 
>>> On Jul 12, 2014, at 8:52 PM, Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> [SNIP]
>>> 
>>>> If GAC is really trying to gain proportionally greater influence on the CG,
>>>> then I think that should be forcefully resisted.
>>> 
>>> +1.
>>> 
>>>> If GAC just wants to have accurate expression of its varied views (and thinks that requires all
>>>> "viewers" being explicitly present), then that should be extended equally
>>>> to other SGs at the same time.  All or nothing.
>>> 
>>> As per my understanding, GAC communiques are drafted using consensus amongst their members (in the absence of any formal objection). In the case of an inability to reach the required level of decision-making, the GAC Chair is required to convey the full range of views expressed by the membership. It has always been their modus operandi to use this decision making mechanism. I don’t understand why it is suddenly becoming an issue with this coordination group, unless of course, it is an attempt to (as Milton puts it) make the group into a voting body rather than a representative one liaising with its own AC within the ICANN community. This kind of representation doesn’t apply to a collective of the four SGs within the GNSO, so I would (IMHO) avoid conflating the two issues. Four (or more) representatives from the GNSO shouldn’t equate to more reps from the GAC.
>>> 
>>> One representative should be enough to liaise with the GAC. A second one serves as backup, which may very well be needed. Five (one for each world region) sounds a bit over-the-top to me.
>>> 
>>> For more on GAC operating procedures in this context, please check Principle 47 and the footnote at the bottom of the page found here: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Operating+Principles
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>