Hi - and thanks.

- deferring to me in such matters is never the right thing to do. In
social circumstances it is a lovely thing, but on a list, never.

Socially, no question. In other areas, I try to work within my own areas of competence, which my fiancé constantly reminds me are quite limited, and in the area of ICANN procedural possibilities I’ll listen and, if not necessarily defer, will offer considerable deference to those whose experience and knowledge I respect.

- i tend to think of Staff as stakeholders too, though of a very
different sort. When the multistakeholder definition says 'everyone',
forme, it has to mean them too.

We may have to disagree here. I view ICANN staff as being privatized civil servants and the best civil servant is one who functions quietly and is rarely seen or heard. I find it particularly noxious to allow direct staff participation in this group, one that is designed to hold staff accountable. It’s the equivalence of allowing criminals yet to be sentenced participation in commissions creating sentencing guidelines – society, or in our case the community, should decide the rules, not those to whom the rules are to apply.

- this is broader than the inside ICANN community. The accountability
is accountability to the global multuistakeholder community by ICANN on
issues of critical Internet resources.

Agreed.

-I see these experts as being asked to give that viewpoint.
Now I fear so-called experts, they can be good or oh so
awful.

Agreed.

- I think removing the choice of the experts from the Board/Staff
political decision makers and giving it to the group of the 'wise' - the
Public Experts Group (PEG)*, is real and can be made meaningful.

Disagree.

I have a tendency to believe more in crowd sourcing than in experts. I’m concerned about the increasing role of experts in ICANN and don’t believe it’s a positive trend.

If we are going to use so-called experts, though, particularly if they are to act in more than an advisory role, they need to be selected with input from the community. Our SG alone is far more diverse than the Board/Staff. To block us from having ANY input into the selection of “experts” is wrong from the standpoint of consulting any portion of the global community, and is completely contrary to the principle of bottom up.

If we are going to have any “group of the wise” the community has to have input in selecting them. This top down selection of philosopher-kings is unacceptable. I never thought I’d see the day when ICANN began to look more like the organizational structure of the Catholic Church than it did that of a representative democracy.

- I think we should save our voice for our reaction to the choosing of the
Public Experts Group.

We’ll be doing that as well but I again reiterate my suggestion that we should also come up with our own list of names to present for consideration to the Public Experts Group for appointment to the Coordination Group. We simply have wider and broader networks than they do, are more global in reach than any four people selected, and regardless of any official status I’m sure our input would be considered. Sometimes it’s nice to be proactive rather than reactive.

- This is more like an advisory organization, seeming somewhat
a hybird between an advisory committee and a supporting organization -
time will tell. It is a lot like the AOC in some aspects, except that
it is NOT the Board Chair, CEO and GAC chair deciding who is on the
entire team.

Very perceptive and interesting observation. Thank you.

- > 3. Please note: “All stakeholders that wish to participate in the
> Cross Community Group may indicate their involvement by submitting
> their names to [log in to unmask]” It would be
> great to get as many members as we can on the Group. The sign on
> process has begun.
>
- I have sent my signup request.

As have I.

- On the other recommendations, if you really think you can change things
for the better or if saying I told you so is important, by all means
write the strong letter.

I’ll be happy to do so if there is support for such an effort. A point of clarification: it’s not about “I told you so”. It’s about being proactive now so we don’t leave ourselves open to the “if you weren’t happy with x why didn’t you raise objections to it when we proposed it” attack later.

I don’t see the Public Experts Group, selected not by the public but by ICANN staff, as being much of an improvement on the initial proposal to which we objected. There are improvements in the modified plan, but certainly not enough for me to lend my support to it.