Hi Milton

Many governments want to keep their advisory role to CMSM and I think it's
inevitable. What we might be better off doing is to have some kind of rules
to prevent what you predicted (delaying the process etc).Are you suggesting
that giving them the right to vote would be better than the advisory role?
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. 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 ? I think what you are predicting above is
based on GAC current advisory role to board. And in my opinion GAC advisory
role in CMSM might be of a different nature.

On 1 September 2015 at 03:58, Mueller, Milton L <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>
> After studying how GAC “advice” has evolved over the years I would warn
> strongly against giving GAC or any other AC an “advisory” role to the
> Community Mechanism process.
>
>
>
> Do you mean beyond the advice to the Board? Would this mean that the GAC
> may go against a majority decision of the community mechanism?
>
>
>
> MM: Yes, I mean beyond advice to the board. What I mean is, don’t create
> the same relationship between GAC:Community Mechanism as there is now
> between GAC: Board
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Farzaneh