Milton has asked this dialogue to “try
to move to a consensus” with regard to the issue of additional
seats for GAC on the CG.
This short comment is about a proposed consensus, and it focuses
on Milton’s 4th point: More seats “…seems to encourage a view of
the coordination group (CG) as a decisional body”.
I would propose as an NCSG consensus something like: The core
roles of the Coordinating Group (CG) are to construct an IANA
transition proposal document for the stakeholder constituencies,
and to keep the stakeholder constituencies informed of the work in
progress. Proposal contents are to be based on the submissions
received by the CG and organized into consensus components, and
areas of divergent opinion. The roles of CG members include the
drafting of the transition proposal document, and acting as
liaison between the work of the CG and their constituencies.
Constituencies will submit collective and individual
recommendations to the CG.
If we wish to give Milton specific advice on the issue of GAC
seats on the CG, I would argue for soft opposition on the grounds
that the CG is not a decisional body. Its success depends more on
submissions based on animated discussion within constituencies
than on constituency seats on the CG.
Sam L.
On 15/07/2014 11:10 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
There
are other reasons, however, not to accede to the GAC on this
point. Those reasons are:
1.
It
reinforces the GAC’s sense that governments are exceptional
and privileged stakeholders, which has bad long term
consequences and may affect the CG’s solution set
2.
Efforts
to give GAC what they want in the TLD policy process has made
things worse, not better
3.
Making
their representation on the committee region-based and
“representative” rather than primarily a liaison role could
actually encourage differences and fragmentation among the GAC
4.
It
seems to encourage a view of the coordination group (CG) as a
decisional body. (get used to this new acronym, CG)
Perhaps
that can provide the basis for further discussion. From what
I’ve seen so far, there is no basis for me to go into this
meeting either adamantly opposing or actively supporting
additional seats for GAC. If you want me to be less
wishy-washy, try to move to a consensus.
--
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: [log in to unmask] Skype: slanfranco
blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852