From: farzaneh badii [mailto:[log in to unmask]]

Many governments want to keep their advisory role to CMSM and I think it's inevitable.

MM: No, we cannot think of an Advisory role to SMCM as inevitable. First, because it isn’t (it isn’t even part of the CCWG proposal); second, because we have to be principled in our analysis and show that a privileged advisory role is wrong and outside the bounds of what we will accept.  It completely subverts the whole concept of community empowerment to have GAC – or anyone else – get the last word or hold up the process while they develop a different position that has to be “taken into account.” No, a thousand times no.

Are you suggesting that giving them the right to vote would be better than the advisory role?

MM: If GAC were to give up their existing privileged status of their advice to the board, and participate in the SMCM as a stakeholder no different than anyone else – including especially no special “advice” status – then yes, that would be better.

Also their advisory role has not been discussed yet so we don't really know how and at what stage they can intervene what they should do to intervene and what they should really give advice on.

MM: We know perfectly well what they will claim to intervene on. It will be the two magic words that can rationalize any intervention at any time: public policy.

Do they give advice to the board on how to reconsider the bylaws? Also for recalling the ICANN board, it doesn't make sense for them to give advice to the board for its own removal so how would that work ?

MM: Clearly, even if you accept the WSIS “stakeholder roles” nonsense, there is no justification for privileging GAC advice in these areas (bylaws, board removal).