Wow ! A real contracdictory debate. Really enriching me. Let's move forward. We'll arrive at the final destination with satisfaction. I'm following up and learning a lot. And the most interesting thing for me is that I'm more and more polishing my english ;-). It's MERVEILLEUX ! Merci beaucoup ! Cheers ! -Olévié- 2014-08-15 16:32 UTC, Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]>: > 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. > > Thanks again Avri. -- Olévié Ayaovi Agbenyo KOUAMI Responsable Département CERGI-Education (http://www.cergibs.com) CEO de INTIC4DEV (http://www.intic4dev.org) SG de ESTETIC (http://www.estetic.tg) Membre de ISoc (www.isoc.org <http://www.isoc.org/>) & du FOSSFA ( www.fossfa.net) ICANN-NPOC Communications Committee Chair (http://www.icann.org/ et http://www.npoc.org/) BP : 851 - Tél.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 98 43 27 72 Skype : olevie1 FB : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé - Togo