On Sunday, July 13, 2014, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi Dan, Milton and all,

On Jul 12, 2014, at 8:52 PM, Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]')">[log in to unmask]> wrote:

[SNIP]

> If GAC is really trying to gain proportionally greater influence on the CG,
> then I think that should be forcefully resisted.

+1.

> If GAC just wants to have accurate expression of its varied views (and thinks that requires all
> "viewers" being explicitly present), then that should be extended equally
> to other SGs at the same time. All or nothing.

As per my understanding, GAC communiques are drafted using consensus amongst their members (in the absence of any formal objection). In the case of an inability to reach the required level of decision-making, the GAC Chair is required to convey the full range of views expressed by the membership. It has always been their modus operandi to use this decision making mechanism. I don’t understand why it is suddenly becoming an issue with this coordination group, unless of course, it is an attempt to (as Milton puts it) make the group into a voting body rather than a representative one liaising with its own AC within the ICANN community. This kind of representation doesn’t apply to a collective of the four SGs within the GNSO, so I would (IMHO) avoid conflating the two issues. Four (or more) representatives from the GNSO shouldn’t equate to more reps from the GAC.

One representative should be enough to liaise with the GAC. A second one serves as backup, which may very well be needed. Five (one for each world region) sounds a bit over-the-top to me.

For more on GAC operating procedures in this context, please check Principle 47 and the footnote at the bottom of the page found here: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Operating+Principles

Thanks.

Amr