[ccwg-internet-governance] [discuss] ICANN proposal for NTIA transition published

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Wed Apr 9 14:45:59 UTC 2014


PatrikIt may be that an AC can agree to two. I am not commenting on that.
For the GNSO, we are not organized in that way. The GNSO Council is limited to gTLD policy. Governance of the GNSO is done through Excomms in each SG/Constituency.
I would propose at least one per SG from GNSO, which is 4. 
I just reread the ICANN posting on the Strat Panels, which avoid a real public comment process and have an 'unarchieved' email list, which means that whatever anyone posts to the chairs of the Strat Panels goes into a black hole, without any visibility to others from the community.While that may seem insignificant to some, it is a significant shift.
Just as the continued effort to have staff drive rather than support.
I realise that the SSAC is an expert mechanism with staff supporting, not driving, but that is not the present trend with many discussions. 
I continue to look at the CCWG.
We struggle for acceptance from the ICANN staff, Board. Why is that? 
Because racing ahead as a group of recently retained staff is more important than really working to support the Stakeholders?One is a sustainable model.
During the ICANN meeting, and even recently, critical comments were made by some about those who voice questions and concerns.  I was so disappointed to hear these words.
Critique is what we need. Expressions of concern are the most important input we can receive. IF we know where ICANN is weak, then we, the community, can guide its improvement.
That should concern us all, and the Board and Staff who have taken that approach should rethink their attitude. 
This is not about 'us' endorsing what Fadi/staff/Board want, but listening carefully, reflecting back, gaining views, and putting forward tentative approaches, for community 'discussion', not endorsement, until the community truly endorses.




Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] [discuss] ICANN proposal for NTIA transition published
From: paf at netnod.se
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 08:07:24 +0200
CC: GShatan at reedsmith.com; ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
To: marilynscade at hotmail.com


On 9 apr 2014, at 07:44, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:In this proposed model, staff goes even farther to limit input and representativeness on the SG, by limiting the participants to 2 per SO/AC. 
How many participants do you suggest per SO/AC?
   Patrik
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20140409/c58090e2/attachment.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list