Hi James,
I have been told that historically there was a time when the "end-user"
filled more than one seat on the board of ICANN, that status was
re-written, so this is not the first time to have "a whole new community
paradigm" as you put it. If what we currently have was perfect then there
would have been no need for CCWG on accountability.
The CMSM powers is not (should not) be attached to current roles but rather
to stakeholders. GAC is a distinct stakeholder, so seeing them as literal
advisers does not (will not) IMO promote multiskaholderism neither will it
ensure accountability of not just the board but also of the entire
community.
I hope you are a strong supporter of multistakeholderism?
Regards
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:16 AM, James Gannon <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Seun,
> I suggest that if you have a few minutes you read my comments to the CCWG
> where I go into detail on why I believe that by giving the AC’s (And I dont
> discriminate I believe this applies to all ACs) we are rewriting the balace
> of power within ICANN and forming a whole new community paradigm, which I
> believe is not the work of the CCWG to do and that I don’t believe furthers
> the accountability of ICANN, and may actually risk being held up as an
> example of how we are not accountable when we pervert mechanisms to
> alternative goals.
>
> https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00000.html
>
> -James
>
>
>
>
> On 31 Aug 2015, at 11:04, Seun Ojedeji <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 10:10 AM, James Gannon <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> 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 don't think i have seen anyone suggest that GAC should be privileged on
> CMSM, i also don't think i will call "exercising of CMSM" powers as being
> literately advisory in nature. So my view is that GAC (if they will indeed
> take it) should have the same role that other community have within the
> CMSM i.e the current 5x5 nature proposed in the CCWG accountability
> proposal
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> +1 and i would also not agree to that as well. However, again i have not
> seen anyone suggest that.
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Negative and this is where i will disagree with you. If GAC is not
> allowed to participate in CMSM what then is the essence of the "single sole
> member mechanism" and what's the definition of multistakeholderism in
> practice? I thought it will be good news that every stakeholder is coming
> to discuss and agree via a common ground (CMSM), why should we want to
> distant ourselves from GAC and yet complain latter about their independent
> advices.
>
>>
>> Happy to hear reasons why that would not work.
>>
>
> I hope the ones above are sufficient enough
>
> Cheers!
>
>>
>> -James
>>
>>
>>
>> On 31 Aug 2015, at 07:46, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 9:10 PM, Mueller, Milton L <
>> [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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> *Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web:
> 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 !
>
>
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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 !
|
