Thank you as well for this bit of sanity Milton.

There has to be a firm position held here that under no circumstances 
will we accept a GAC voting participation in the community mechanism 
unless they are relinquishing Board advisory status.

Thus, language should right away start to change to incorporate that 
distinctive fact about this [G] particular AC. When proposing and 
arguing vote attribution patterns in the mechanism, we need to 
distinguish not only SOs and ACs, but SOs, ACs, and ACs with special 
advisory status.

Folks this is where the battle is at. This is no time for bad 
compromises. It is time for principled stand. Milton has got great 
points. Spread them forcefully, and please be relentless in your ability 
to stand firm. Use the equal footing principle to get a real equal footing.

We need to have every other stakeholders know that there is no way that 
an AC or an SO with special status could have both it's special status 
and participate in the community mechanism, just like when you guys 
think that it is impossible to get the GAC to relinquish it's advisory 
status.

The best way in my opinion to do it is to to attack the special status 
but I,ll let the people closer to this decide.

Nicolas

On 31/08/2015 8:54 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
>
> Milton,
>
> Thanks for highlighting this important issue. I think everyone knows 
> our position based on our submitted comment, but Paul and I agree that 
> the joint comment should strongly oppose inclusion of the GAC as a 
> voting participant in the community mechanism if they wish to retain 
> their privileged advisory status.
>
> Best,
>
> Brett
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> BrettSchaefer
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National 
> Security and Foreign Policy
> The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
>
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf 
> Of *Mueller, Milton L
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 30, 2015 3:11 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Some ruminations on GAC in relation to NCSG comments on the 
> CCWG proposal
>
> I’ve been reviewing the transcripts of the ICANN 53 (Buenos Aires) 
> meeting in an attempt to understand better the way the GAC will handle 
> the dilemma it has been put into by the community empowerment 
> mechanism. You can see the preliminary results of my ruminations here: 
> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/08/29/gac-as-first-among-equals-the-danger-in-the-accountability-plan/ 
>
>
> So much for “equal footing.” The GAC repeatedly refers to itself as 
> “first among equals” and they revel in this privileged status.
>
> But these facts need to be reflected in our comments on the CCWG 
> proposal. Ironically, these readings, when considered in connection 
> with an assessment of the impact of GAC “advice” on ICANN’s policy 
> process, might change my prior opposition to including governments in 
> the community mechanism. If we give GAC equal status in the community 
> mechanism and TAKE AWAY their special advice status, we are closer to 
> “equal footing” than we are now. Indeed, it may be that the privileged 
> advisory power is more dangerous and distortive of ‘equal footing’ 
> than their participation in the community mechanism would be. While 
> many of us assume that GAC’s “Advisory” status limits its power, in 
> fact its privileged channel to the board elevates governments above 
> all other stakeholders in the policy making process. If one reviews 
> the history of the new TLD program, for example, one can see how GAC 
> advice was repeatedly used to delay, hijack and change the policy 
> developed by the GNSO. So maybe Heritage Foundation was right: force 
> them to choose between privileged advice or participation in the 
> community mechanism. Or, maybe we should actually PREFER their 
> inclusion in the community mechanism to continued special status of 
> advice.
>
> Two things to avoid like the plague:
>
> 1)Giving GAC BOTH privileged advisory status AND participation in the 
> community mechanism
>
> 2)Giving GAC a similar privileged advisory status over the community 
> mechanism (e.g., GAC would not participate directly but would “advise” 
> the empowered community, which would translate into an effective veto, 
> delay or dilution of the community’s powers).
>
> Well, it seems unlikely that the special advisory power would be taken 
> away. So if we don’t oppose their inclusion in the community 
> mechanism, there is a risk that they will get both. Indeed, it seems 
> highly likely to me that many members of GAC will respond to the CCWG 
> dilemma by demanding option 1) or 2).  Still not sure how to play this.
>
> Your thoughts?
>
> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>
> Professor, School of Public Policy
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>