Greetings,

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 9 Oct 2009, at 08:10, Joly MacFie wrote:
>
>> While we did not manage to resolve the differences in the 'constituency'
>> versus 'broad tent' approaches to the NCSG I think we did find some
>> common ground in agreeing that there are definite flaws in the SIC
>> proposal,
>> not to mention process.
>
>
> I very much appreciate the opportunity to listen in.  And I think bringing
> these protagonists together in one room was a great idea.

I was happy to participate and thanks to ISOC-NY for enabling it.

Perhaps ICANN could fast-track consensus on thorny issues if NCUC and
Policy Staff were locked-up in a room at Seoul and told the key will
only used to open the locked door only after they arrive at a
consensus;) ?

>
> As for resolving the issues, I think if we bring a few more people into the
> tent, like some of those on the chat session, we probably can find a way to
> common ground.  What we really need to count on is someone giving us the
> time, space and resources to negotiate and work things out.

ICANN should! As proof of inclusivity and on the Equity
principle(unequal treatment of unequals)

>
> This is where the ICANN Policy staff  needs to become an enabler for
> resolution, as a support to us working out our differences as opposed to
> acting as a champion for one side or another.  This would be the greatest of
> changes, one we yet have to see, but one which I hope the new CEO can
> effect.

Yes, they should be enablers not, even remotely, be perceived as
undermining anyone.

> I remain forever hopeful that the right conditions can prevail and that the
> agreement can be reached.  I still think that a coordinated set of civil
> society groups can be a formidable force inside ICANN.  Even if we never
> will have the money the commercial side does.
>

We shall all be happy to then declare ICANN "fair" and "receptive" to everyone.