<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><div><br></div><div>arun</div><div><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><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: +91-9871943272</div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>