a few questions inline 

txs

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez



> On Aug 31, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> After studying how GAC “advice” has evolved over the years I would warn strongly against giving GAC or any other AC an “advisory” role to the Community Mechanism process.

Do you mean beyond the advice to the Board? Would this mean that the GAC may go against a majority decision of the community mechanism?

> People tend to be so naïve about this. “Advice” does not mean some free exchange of information. You have to look at the “advice” process as a strategic interaction in which timing, who gets the last word, and interest group coalitions interact.
>  
> As an example, suppose the SMCM needs to make a very critical, important decision to block some bad action, and a mobilized community has obtained the supermajority support needed to take effective action. Now suppose the GAC says, “oh, we need 6 months to develop our formal consensus advice.” (this would actually be fairly quick for them) So the SMCM is paralyzed until the GAC provides its advice,

What if the advice goes against the majority of the rest of the community mechanism members?

> which gives those who wish to undermine the mobilized community a chance to lobby, chip away, etc. And then the GAC advice comes in, and it is structurally privileged, because it is not the last word, the final bit of information to be taken into consideration before a decision is made, so it gets to reframe and restart the whole debate.
>  
> No. No. No. No. No. Don’t even think about doing that.
>  
> Giving GAC advice its current privileged status

to the board?

> was a HUGE mistake. As my blog transcript quotes prove, the governments know that it makes them “first among equals” in the normal policy development process. It may be impossible to undo that mistake, but please, let’s not repeat the same stupid mistake in our vital accountability reforms.



> The Community Mechanism should be just that – a _community_ accountability mechanism, a way for the bottom up process to impose checks and balances on the top level decision makers. You destroy that if you overlay this privileged government “advice” relationship on top of it.
>  
>   <>
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of James Gannon
> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 5:11 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Some ruminations on GAC in relation to NCSG comments on the CCWG proposal
>  
> 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
>  
>