On 23-Aug-15 21:35, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> If there is a point that most or all of us agree on – such as the
> voting allocations in the CCWG proposal – we will have more impact if
> multiple voices are heard making the same point. 

I want to indicate that, personally, I am not in agreement with the
position currently in the NCSG comments.  While I would have preferred
full parity allocation from each AC/SO, I am willing to accept the
allocation in Draft 2.  I think it is especially important that the
model includes equal footing for ICANN stakeholders, as we have done in
CWG and CCWG, be maintained in the SM apportionment.

I think it is a mistake to equate the apportionment in the SM with the
apportionment of seats on the Board of Directors, as the model suggested
in the comments does.  For one thing, it ignores the fact that half of
the directors are appointed by a Nomcom that represents the wider
community's interests.  Those interests need to be included in the SM.

The issue the SM  deals with are not specifically supporting
organization issues, they won't be talking about gTLDS.  They will
concern oversight issues of budget/strategy, changes to the bylaws, and
the removal of the Board or of individual Board members.  These are
issues that require greater diversity among those in discussion.  ICANN
is made up of two kinds of groups, those who give advice to the Board,
which the Board can Accept or Reject, and those who send recommendations
to the Board, which the Board can Accept or Reject. It is the full
matrix  of these 2 groups of organizations that insures we have a full
mix of stakeholders.  This is something we recognized for both the CWG
and CCWG, and it think it is just as relevant in the apportionment of
the SM voting table.

I will be submitting a comment on this issue.


avri




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus