<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Sans-Serif; font-size: 12px"><div>Hi Alan,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I completely disagree.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The ICA is an integral part of the model we've proposed to exercise community powers.</div>
<div> </div>
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" />
<div>
<div><br />
- We will not likely need this powers in the coming months, and if we do, some sort of community discussion will happen regardless of us architecting it or not.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>If community discussion was all the ICA was designed to foster you might be correct. It's much more than that though. The ICA is community plus. The community will be there but so won't, should he or she chose, the ICANN CEO as well as Board members, staff...it's a fantastic idea and I'm hopeful would negate the need for votes or the exercise of community powers. Bringing people together to foster dialogue about contentious issues should, in most cases, allow reasonable people to broker differences and avoid the need to escalate conflict.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I'm also a little bit leary of going the "some sort of community discussion" group route. Ad hoc discussions tend to result in less diversity, less inclusiveness and perpetuate a status quo that may or may not be legitimate.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I'm a big supporter of the ICA, excited about it's potential, and certainly can see no reason to defer it to WS2.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ed<br />
<br />
</div>
<blockquote cite="" class="cite" type="cite"> </blockquote>
</div></span>