[CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Revised draft - Voting weights in community mechanism
arun.sukumar at nludelhi.ac.in
Tue Jul 28 06:23:59 UTC 2015
It is admittedly late in the day -- and as Mathieu says, since voting
weights too important to be pushed to WS2 - my personal view is: we could
wait for public comments and if there is concern expressed on the role of
ALAC (among other so/acs), expect the co-chairs to flag it, and as CCWG we
respond substantively to this concern.
Meanwhile, we go along with the proposal as is. I say this without
prejudice to the views of colleagues in the CCWG who have expressed similar
concerns. Reason for saying it: public comment period is the closest this
working group has to accept user comments because not every user can
participate in this exercise.
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na> wrote:
> I was just quoting from the first sentence on the ALAC web site defining
> what At-Large is.
> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
> On Jul 27, 2015, at 17:09, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
> Insofar as they advise on policy development activities to the board as
> part of their role yes, but the ALAC is not directly responsible for policy
> development, that role is for the supporting organizations the ASO, ccNSO
> and GNSO.
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance <http://www.ccgdelhi.org>
National Law University, New Delhi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community