All,

My last two comments before consensus, whatever that is:

Minor: The logic behind more positions for GAC suggests that NCSG is also grossly under-represented. But I think not!
Major: The CG should, as its first order of business, clarify the rules of the process and the nature of the deliverable.

Prediction: More GAC members on the CG will present GAC with more challenges sorting out its own position.
Also, the more likely GAC internal divisions of opinion will spill over into the CG. Hope I am wrong here.

Sam L.

On 15/07/2014 3:45 PM, Balleste, Roy wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

Milton and colleagues,

 

Given that this is a discussion that seeks to find consensus, I want to share an observation.  As I said before, I was not inclined to agree to more government members in the CG.  In the other hand, I would hate to see the CG weakened in status for the reasons expressed by Bill.  And I add, there are somewhat of a parallel here to the WGIG.  The WGIG was at a crossroads in search for new solutions in uncharted waters.  Although organized differently, the CG has a similar mandate.  Because of that, I am now more inclined to say that Bill and Avri have a unique perspective in this case, and that consensus should follow their views.  In any case, as it has been suggested, the rules of the process are not clear as of this moment.

 

 

Roy Balleste

Law Library Director &

Professor of Law

St. Thomas University Law Library

16401 NW 37th Avenue

Miami Gardens, FL 33054

305-623-2341