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:
Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 12 Jul 2014 20:45:11 +0000
Reply-To:
Olévié Kouami <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
Subject:
From:
Olévié Kouami <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
MIME-Version:
1.0
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (61 lines)
+1 @Sam.
Cheers !
-Olevie-


2014-07-12 19:45 UTC, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]>:
> 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


-- 
Olévié Ayaovi Agbenyo KOUAMI
Responsable Département CERGI-Education (http://www.cergibs.com)
CEO de INTIC4DEV (http://www.intic4dev.org)
SG de ESTETIC  (http://www.estetic.tg)
Membre de ISoc (www.isoc.org <http://www.isoc.org/>) & du FOSSFA (
www.fossfa.net)
ICANN-NPOC Communications Committee Chair (http://www.icann.org/ et
http://www.npoc.org/)
BP : 851 - Tél.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 98 43 27 72
Skype : olevie1 FB : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé - Togo

ATOM RSS1 RSS2