Hi MM

On Jul 12, 2014, at 5:45 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The coordination group will meet in London next week for its first f2f meeting. We've also had an initial conference call. 
> 
> I want to solicit your opinion on two immediate issues we will face. 
> 
> 1. GAC representation. 
> Governments have been allotted 2 seats on the coordination group (CG). They want 5, one for each world region. 
> ICANN has indicated that it will follow the CG's lead on whether to add additional seats or keep it at two. 
> I have an opinion on this, but want to see what others think. 
> My opinion is that the GAC should not be allowed to add more members; the basic fallacy they are making is to see the CG as a voting body rather than seeing its members as liaisons to the specific communities represented. 2 seats allows them to keep tabs on what the CG is doing and carry that info back to the GAC and the GAC's reaction back to the CG. With 5 seats you are not only inflating the size of an already large committee but inflating the representation of a stakeholder group that, according to the NTIA mandate, is not supposed to play a controlling role in the outcome. Other perspectives welcome. 

Not at all surprising, since they are used to following regional coordination processes in many UN settings, 2 governments can hardly represent their various coalitions in any meaningful way, etc.  Leaving aside our standard ideological differences, to the extent that one seeks political buy-in and sustainability for whatever solution will be found and that 5 GACsters are unlikely to control outcomes in an overwhelmingly business and technical community group, a priori I’d be more favorably inclined than you and McTim to say that the world’s governments should get more reps than the ALAC, ISOC, etc.  But it’d be easier to say for sure if I was up to speed on the larger discussion about composition.  Are we still at 27 people? Will the GNSO representation be increased as asked for?  Are any other groups asking for and likely to get more?
> 
> 2. Transition scope and expectations about work in the communities. 
> Our working agenda says: "It would be good to clarify the CG's understanding of the scope of the work of the transition, what the community processes need to produce, and where/how areas of overlap will be handled." Advice on how we want this scope issue to be handled is welcome. We obviously want to avoid making "scope" a code word for eliminating certain outcomes or end states that certain forces don't want to happen.  

I’d need to have my head more inside the process than I do at the moment to say anything useful.  Since yours is there, maybe you could share a little more how you see the issues and choices?

Thanks

Bill