I think Adam's argument makes sense, except that at this point, changing
the community approved process could in itself create a precedence that
should be avoided. If this request came in before implementing the
formation of the SC process, then perhaps it would have been useful.

While increasing to 5 may not affect the process, it is a major
modification to the laid down CG formation that was approved by the
community. It is on this basis that i will not support such modification.

On a lighter note, i think the CG should avoid being put on the spot this
way. This request IMO should not even be entertained at all!

Kind Regards


On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Adam <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Jul 14, 2014, at 7:20 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>
> > I agree that we should resist GAC demands to obtain preferential
> treatment or disproportionate make-up of this coordination group.
>
>
> Disagree very strongly.  5 members from what would become a 30 strong
> group is not disproportionate.  If "multi-stakeholder" is to have any
> meaning then for one of the core representative groups to only have 2
> members from 27 is ridiculous.
>
> <
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-06-06-en#annex-one
> >
>
> 5 of 30 would not in anyway cause government to be come some super power,
> but it would allow them to select representatives to reflect their regional
> organizational structure.
>
> If we want this process to work, then preparing for  the first meeting by
> welcoming five members from GAC would be a good start.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> >  I'd leave it at 2 members from GAC in the coordination group (unless
> GNSO and especially noncommercial users) are provided additional positions
> in the group).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Robin
> >
> > On Jul 12, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Dan, Milton and all,
> >>
> >> On Jul 12, 2014, at 8:52 PM, Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>
> >> [SNIP]
> >>
> >>> If GAC is really trying to gain proportionally greater influence on
> the CG,
> >>> then I think that should be forcefully resisted.
> >>
> >> +1.
> >>
> >>> If GAC just wants to have accurate expression of its varied views (and
> thinks that requires all
> >>> "viewers" being explicitly present), then that should be extended
> equally
> >>> to other SGs at the same time.  All or nothing.
> >>
> >> As per my understanding, GAC communiques are drafted using consensus
> amongst their members (in the absence of any formal objection). In the case
> of an inability to reach the required level of decision-making, the GAC
> Chair is required to convey the full range of views expressed by the
> membership. It has always been their modus operandi to use this decision
> making mechanism. I don’t understand why it is suddenly becoming an issue
> with this coordination group, unless of course, it is an attempt to (as
> Milton puts it) make the group into a voting body rather than a
> representative one liaising with its own AC within the ICANN community.
> This kind of representation doesn’t apply to a collective of the four SGs
> within the GNSO, so I would (IMHO) avoid conflating the two issues. Four
> (or more) representatives from the GNSO shouldn’t equate to more reps from
> the GAC.
> >>
> >> One representative should be enough to liaise with the GAC. A second
> one serves as backup, which may very well be needed. Five (one for each
> world region) sounds a bit over-the-top to me.
> >>
> >> For more on GAC operating procedures in this context, please check
> Principle 47 and the footnote at the bottom of the page found here:
> https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Operating+Principles
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Amr
> >
>



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>[log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !