I think you overestimate the extent of GAC coordination and agreement.
Governments are not unified.

I think the danger of allowing more GAC input is that there will be more government disunity and more representation of minority govt views. This isn't a bad thing for the process, IMO, but it might make the job of the CG harder.

David

On 14 Jul 2014, at 3:44 pm, Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

5  will be more powerful than two, even (especially?) in a non-voting coordinating body such as this. Think of what we could do with 5. 2 will force a lot of gvnmt politics upstream from the CG, while 5 will enable it to come crashing down in the CG. Clever gvnmt planners will fully take advantage of that fact. That's on the strategical side of things. On the tactical side of things, 5 will mean 5 will see be able to sneak attack the little details, like defining code words in an upstream phase in an play to contain what goes on in a downstream phase. I just don't see what is gained by letting that happen.

My .02 is that Milton's job will be harder with 5.



On 14/07/2014 8:50 AM, McTim wrote:
David,

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:30 AM, David Cake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
On 12 Jul 2014, at 5:45 pm, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> 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.
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. 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.

While in general I take the point that the GAC may have the wrong idea about its function, I do not feel that 5 or 2 out of a group that is already too large is something that is crucial to make a stand over.

If they are to act as representatives of 'the GAC', then I would oppose the increase - but it would be my hope that they are instead acting as liaisons to the governments of regions, and trying to communicate the many and varied views of government rather than GAC consensus. If that is indeed their intention - that they are asking for more representation because they intend to liaise in a way that goes beyond normal GAC processes, and directly represents a broad range of govt inputs into the process rather than a single GAC position, which I think would be healthy - then I think asking for 5 is not outrageous.

OK, you and Adam have convinced me.


I agree that any suggestion that the CG should be a voting body should be resisted.
+1