<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div> Some relevant questions and good reply.</div><div>I strongly oppose any adjustive before consensus whether it is " rough " or " Soft" or any thing else.</div><div>We are CCWG and not IETF.</div><div>In ICG that term even though proposed was abandonnned</div><div>Pls kindly do not interpret " CONSENSUS" </div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-03-22 19:18 GMT+01:00 Rahul Sharma <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wisdom.stoic@gmail.com" target="_blank">wisdom.stoic@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hi Arun,<div><br></div><div>Just thinking aloud on the substance pointer raised - can multistakholder model be evolved in a manner that ensures proportional representation in communities, forums, structures and Board. When I say proportional, I mean proportional to Internet population of the country.<br><br>Regards,</div><div>Rahul Sharma</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On 22 March 2015 at 15:04, Arun Sukumar <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:arun.sukumar@nludelhi.ac.in" target="_blank">arun.sukumar@nludelhi.ac.in</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div><div class="h5"><div dir="ltr">Valerie D'Costa, an advisor to the CCWG, raised a couple of interesting and important questions on process and substance. I hope this is a faithful reproduction. <div><br></div><div>On process:</div><div><br></div><div>1. What should be the role of advisors? Should they offer advice on the basis of unanimity or "rough consensus", or just provide input independently? </div><div><br></div><div>2. Should advisors restrict their role to responding to questions that have been flagged by the CCWG and routed through the chairs? Or should they/ can they flag issues they feel are important - weighed from their expertise. </div><div><br></div><div>On substance:</div><div><br></div><div>1. How is the accountability process taking stock of the evolving "global internet community", given that it is going to be driven by numbers from the developing world? </div><div><br></div><div>2. Taking off from Q1, is the CCWG evaluating the future capacity of ICANN to be truly representative in the years to come?</div><span><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>arun</div><div><div><br></div>-- <br><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">-<div>@<a href="http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar" target="_blank">arunmsukumar</a></div><div>Senior Fellow, <a href="http://www.ccgdelhi.org" target="_blank">Centre for Communication Governance</a></div><div>National Law University, New Delhi</div><div>Ph: <a href="tel:%2B91-9871943272" target="_blank" value="+919871943272">+91-9871943272</a></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></font></span></div>
<br></div></div><span>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>