Hi

> On Aug 30, 2015, at 9:10 PM, Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Two things to avoid like the plague:  
> 1)      Giving GAC BOTH privileged advisory status AND participation in the community mechanism
> 2)      Giving GAC a similar privileged advisory status over the community mechanism (e.g., GAC would not participate directly but would “advise” the empowered community, which would translate into an effective veto, delay or dilution of the community’s powers).
>  
> Well, it seems unlikely that the special advisory power would be taken away.

To put it mildly

> So if we don’t oppose their inclusion in the community mechanism, there is a risk that they will get both.

Sounds right

> Indeed, it seems highly likely to me that many members of GAC will respond to the CCWG dilemma by demanding option 1) or 2).  Still not sure how to play this.

At the ICANN Studienkreis meeting it seemed clear that not changing the existing balance of power is viewed as essential to avoiding ‘destabilization’, the red line framing de jour. So maybe adopt that as a framing and deploy it to our ends?

Bill