Hi,

And from the other side, if he is going to go one way or another it
should go toward acceptance of the GAC request for practical reasons.

Hence the lack of consensus and my willingness for Milton to go along
with the rest of consensus of other groups on this point.


Where is the rest of GNSO on this one?

avri

On 15-Jul-14 11:48, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> Milton has asked this dialogue to “try to move to a consensus” with
> regard to the issue of additional seats for GAC on the CG. 
> 
> This short comment is about a proposed consensus, and it focuses on
> Milton’s 4th point: More seats “…seems to encourage a view of the
> coordination group (CG) as a decisional body”.
> 
> I would propose as an NCSG consensus something like: The core roles of
> the Coordinating Group (CG) are to construct an IANA transition proposal
> document for the stakeholder constituencies, and to keep the stakeholder
> constituencies informed of the work in progress. Proposal contents are
> to be based on the submissions received by the CG and organized into
> consensus components, and areas of divergent opinion. The roles of CG
> members include the drafting of the transition proposal document, and
> acting as liaison between the work of the CG and their constituencies.
> Constituencies will submit collective and individual recommendations to
> the CG.
> 
> If we wish to give Milton specific advice on the issue of GAC seats on
> the CG, I would argue for soft opposition on the grounds that the CG is
> not a decisional body. Its success depends more on submissions based on
> animated discussion within constituencies than on constituency seats on
> the CG.
> 
> Sam L.
> 
> On 15/07/2014 11:10 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>> There are other reasons, however, not to accede to the GAC on this
>> point. Those reasons are:
>>
>>  
>>
>> 1.       It reinforces the GAC’s sense that governments are
>> exceptional and privileged stakeholders, which has bad long term
>> consequences and may affect the CG’s solution set
>>
>> 2.       Efforts to give GAC what they want in the TLD policy process
>> has made things worse, not better
>>
>> 3.       Making their representation on the committee region-based and
>> “representative” rather than primarily a liaison role could actually
>> encourage differences and fragmentation among the GAC
>>
>> 4.       It seems to encourage a view of the coordination group (CG)
>> as a decisional body. (get used to this new acronym, CG)
>>
>>  
>>
>> Perhaps that can provide the basis for further discussion. From what
>> I’ve seen so far, there is no basis for me to go into this meeting
>> either adamantly opposing or actively supporting additional seats for
>> GAC. If you want me to be less wishy-washy, try to move to a consensus.
>>
> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------
> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
> in an unjust state" -Confucius
> ------------------------------------------------
> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
> email: [log in to unmask]   Skype: slanfranco
> blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
>