I suppose my position on this was so far that the GAC should be given an advisory role to the community mechanism but in a non-privilidged manner, no special bylaw to the CMSM.

And I believe that this is how all the AC’s should be treated, I agree with the point that if we further engrain the special status of the GAC into accountability mechanisms we are just perpetuating the issues that we know we already have.



I would strongly oppose them having any participation in the community mechanism and them being given any special advisory role to it, but I could live with them (And all other AC’s) being given an advisory role to the CMSM in place of their participation, but with all Acs on an equal footing in that.



Happy to hear reasons why that would not work.



-James







On 31 Aug 2015, at 07:46, William Drake <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:



Hi



On Aug 30, 2015, at 9:10 PM, Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:



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.



To put it mildly



So if we don’t oppose their inclusion in the community mechanism, there is a risk that they will get both.



Sounds right



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.



At the ICANN Studienkreis meeting it seemed clear that not changing the existing balance of power is viewed as essential to avoiding ‘destabilization’, the red line framing de jour. So maybe adopt that as a framing and deploy it to our ends?



Bill