<p dir="ltr">sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
On 22 Mar 2015 10:34, "Arun Sukumar" <<a href="mailto:arun.sukumar@nludelhi.ac.in">arun.sukumar@nludelhi.ac.in</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> 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. <br>
><br>
> On process:<br>
><br>
> 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? <br>
><br>
SO: I think this should be for the advisors to determine as I expect ccwg to take any comment from the advisors as an advice from the advisors. It's now left to the advisor to determine how best they want to coordinate. However if I were to advice the "advisors" ;-) I would remove "independent input" from the option as it would be helpful for advisors to discuss amongst themselves to provide more quality input.<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">> 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. <br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">SO: I would prefer the later so long as their comments comes in during the period when the topic is also discussed; It will not be productive to have advisors providing suggestion/advice after the ccwg has observed/achieved consensus on a particular issue.</p>
<p dir="ltr">> On substance:<br>
><br>
> 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? <br>
><br>
SO:<br>
I like and appreciate this question, there is the reality that the next 1 billion internet users will be from the developing world. Intentionally getting them involved in this process is critical...While there are existing efforts already made in this direction... there is also need to improve upon it.<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">> 2. Taking off from Q1, is the CCWG evaluating the future capacity of ICANN to be truly representative in the years to come?<br>
><br>
SO: In addition to the response above, the ccwg outcome need to ensure that there is always avenue to ensure participation of developing world. There is need to always apply the principle of the "young shall grow" (if given the opportunity), followed by the principle of "old is not wise" to ensure diversity and continuity.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Thanks for the share Arun</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<p dir="ltr">> arun<br>
><br>
> -- <br>
> -<br>
> @arunmsukumar<br>
> Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance<br>
> National Law University, New Delhi<br>
> Ph: +91-9871943272<br>
><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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
><br>
</p>