Wow !
A real contracdictory debate.
Really enriching me.
Let's move forward. We'll arrive at the final destination with satisfaction.
I'm following up and learning a lot.
And the most interesting thing for me is that I'm more and more
polishing my english ;-).
It's MERVEILLEUX !
Merci beaucoup !
Cheers !
-Olévié-
2014-08-15 16:32 UTC, Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]>:
> Hi - and thanks.
>
> - deferring to me in such matters is never the right thing to do. In
> social circumstances it is a lovely thing, but on a list, never.
>
> Socially, no question. In other areas, I try to work within my own areas of
>
> competence, which my fiancé constantly reminds me are quite limited, and in
>
> the area of ICANN procedural possibilities I'll listen and, if not
> necessarily defer, will offer considerable deference to those whose
> experience and knowledge I respect.
>
>
> - i tend to think of Staff as stakeholders too, though of a very
> different sort. When the multistakeholder definition says 'everyone',
> forme, it has to mean them too.
>
>
> We may have to disagree here. I view ICANN staff as being privatized civil
> servants and the best civil servant is one who functions quietly and is
> rarely seen or heard. I find it particularly noxious to allow direct staff
> participation in this group, one that is designed to hold staff accountable.
>
> It's the equivalence of allowing criminals yet to be sentenced
> participation in commissions creating sentencing guidelines - society, or
> in our case the community, should decide the rules, not those to whom the
> rules are to apply.
>
>
> - this is broader than the inside ICANN community. The accountability
> is accountability to the global multuistakeholder community by ICANN on
> issues of critical Internet resources.
>
> Agreed.
>
> -I see these experts as being asked to give that viewpoint.
> Now I fear so-called experts, they can be good or oh so
> awful.
>
> Agreed.
>
> - I think removing the choice of the experts from the Board/Staff
> political decision makers and giving it to the group of the 'wise' - the
> Public Experts Group (PEG)*, is real and can be made meaningful.
>
> Disagree.
>
> I have a tendency to believe more in crowd sourcing than in experts. I'm
> concerned about the increasing role of experts in ICANN and don't believe
> it's a positive trend.
>
> If we are going to use so-called experts, though, particularly if they are
> to act in more than an advisory role, they need to be selected with input
> from the community. Our SG alone is far more diverse than the Board/Staff.
> To block us from having ANY input into the selection of "experts" is
> wrong from the standpoint of consulting any portion of the global community,
>
> and is completely contrary to the principle of bottom up.
>
> If we are going to have any "group of the wise" the community has to
> have input in selecting them. This top down selection of philosopher-kings
> is unacceptable. I never thought I'd see the day when ICANN began to look
> more like the organizational structure of the Catholic Church than it did
> that of a representative democracy.
>
> - I think we should save our voice for our reaction to the choosing of the
> Public Experts Group.
>
> We'll be doing that as well but I again reiterate my suggestion that we
> should also come up with our own list of names to present for consideration
>
> to the Public Experts Group for appointment to the Coordination Group. We
> simply have wider and broader networks than they do, are more global in
> reach than any four people selected, and regardless of any official status
> I'm sure our input would be considered. Sometimes it's nice to be
> proactive rather than reactive.
>
>
> - This is more like an advisory organization, seeming somewhat
> a hybird between an advisory committee and a supporting organization -
> time will tell. It is a lot like the AOC in some aspects, except that
> it is NOT the Board Chair, CEO and GAC chair deciding who is on the
> entire team.
>
> Very perceptive and interesting observation. Thank you.
>
>
> - > 3. Please note: "All stakeholders that wish to participate in the
>> Cross Community Group may indicate their involvement by submitting
>> their names to [log in to unmask]" It would be
>> great to get as many members as we can on the Group. The sign on
>> process has begun.
>>
> - I have sent my signup request.
>
> As have I.
>
> - On the other recommendations, if you really think you can change things
> for the better or if saying I told you so is important, by all means
> write the strong letter.
>
> I'll be happy to do so if there is support for such an effort. A point of
> clarification: it's not about "I told you so". It's about being
> proactive now so we don't leave ourselves open to the "if you weren't
> happy with x why didn't you raise objections to it when we proposed it"
> attack later.
>
> I don't see the Public Experts Group, selected not by the public but by
> ICANN staff, as being much of an improvement on the initial proposal to
> which we objected. There are improvements in the modified plan, but
> certainly not enough for me to lend my support to it.
>
> Thanks again Avri.
--
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
|
