I think Adam's argument makes sense, except that at this point, changing the community approved process could in itself create a precedence that should be avoided. If this request came in before implementing the formation of the SC process, then perhaps it would have been useful. While increasing to 5 may not affect the process, it is a major modification to the laid down CG formation that was approved by the community. It is on this basis that i will not support such modification. On a lighter note, i think the CG should avoid being put on the spot this way. This request IMO should not even be entertained at all! Kind Regards On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Adam <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On Jul 14, 2014, at 7:20 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > > > I agree that we should resist GAC demands to obtain preferential > treatment or disproportionate make-up of this coordination group. > > > Disagree very strongly. 5 members from what would become a 30 strong > group is not disproportionate. If "multi-stakeholder" is to have any > meaning then for one of the core representative groups to only have 2 > members from 27 is ridiculous. > > < > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-06-06-en#annex-one > > > > 5 of 30 would not in anyway cause government to be come some super power, > but it would allow them to select representatives to reflect their regional > organizational structure. > > If we want this process to work, then preparing for the first meeting by > welcoming five members from GAC would be a good start. > > Adam > > > > > I'd leave it at 2 members from GAC in the coordination group (unless > GNSO and especially noncommercial users) are provided additional positions > in the group). > > > > Thanks, > > Robin > > > > On Jul 12, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > > >> Hi Dan, Milton and all, > >> > >> On Jul 12, 2014, at 8:52 PM, Dan Krimm <[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 > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *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 !