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-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 !