[CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Revised draft - Voting weights in community mechanism

[Arun Sukumar]

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.

Arun

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.
>
> el
> --
> 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.
>
>
>
> -James
>
>
>
>  *[...]*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>


-- 
-
@arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar>
Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance <http://www.ccgdelhi.org>
National Law University, New Delhi
Ph: +91-9871943272
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150728/ed3b0b04/attachment.html>