Hopefully my indented responses to Bill's indented ones does not confuse the message too much. I've added some color code to keep it happy, even if it might be contrarian! Nicolas On 15/07/2014 12:37 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Milton > > On Jul 15, 2014, at 5:10 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > >> Let me address the “buy-in” comment that has been made by both Bill >> and Adam. >> Both are arguing that acceding to GAC’s wishes may make them more >> supportive of the final outcome. > > More that it reduces their ability to be unsupportive of the outcome > on the grounds that they were not fully able to participate and make > their views known and discharge their responsibilities etc. Reasons and talking points for being unsupportive of outcomes are potentially legions, and I would submit that there is no way, up front, to effectively circumscribe/constrain these by a clever all-encompassing preempting/defusing move. I submit that nothing such will be gained. >> This seems like a reasonable point, and may even be correct – though >> we won’t really know until it is all over. I will note that the 5 >> designated by GAC are not the 5 eyes but include Egypt and Iran. That >> may indeed provide some support for the outcome > > This to me would be all the more reason to have them in. I will leave the appreciation of the impact of the added players to Milton, but indeed it could be that the addition has negligible negative impact and thus even negligible potential gains (that, I submit, is a given) offset the risk. >> 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 > > A priori, being 5 out of @ 30 sounds like neither to me, but > presumably the ground rules could be established to keep things clear. I agree that letting the 5 fly would require clarifying things. > >> 2.Efforts to give GAC what they want in the TLD policy process has >> made things worse, not better > > Depends what we’re talking about, and anyway they’re hardly alone in > that :-) > >> 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 > > Have they said this is how they’d see the role? > >> 4.It seems to encourage a view of the coordination group (CG) as a >> decisional body. (get used to this new acronym, CG) > > This too could be clarified up front, no? It most definitely should (whether or not we intend on letting it fly as far as we are concerned), and what they will say will most likely overflow onto the scope question anyhow. > > Best, > > Bill >> 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. >> --MM >> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]]*On Behalf >> Of*Adam Peake >> *Sent:*Saturday, July 12, 2014 4:40 PM >> *To:*[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> *Subject:*Re: [NCSG-Discuss] IANA transition coordination group: some >> requests for feedback >> Five. >> Multistakeholder: five from 20 plus. Obvious, no? >> And if that doesn't make sense, then it's also politically expedient, >> two not workable for govt. We want this process to work give them >> what they ask. (Less than 20%, so really doesn't matter.) >> Adam >> >> >> On Sunday, July 13, 2014, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> Hi Dan, Milton and all, >> >> On Jul 12, 2014, at 8:52 PM, Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[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 > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org> > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (direct), > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (lists), > www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org> > *********************************************** >