[ccwg-internet-governance] [discuss] ICANN proposal for NTIA transition published
paf at frobbit.se
Wed Apr 9 16:11:00 UTC 2014
On 9 apr 2014, at 16:45, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:
> It may be that an AC can agree to two.
Or even one.
> I am not commenting on that.
Not necessary at all.
> I would propose at least one per SG from GNSO, which is 4.
Maybe we should have same check for every SO/AC?
From SSAC we are ok with one, but would like to have one "vice representative" for continuity reasons.
But, number of people is one thing, how to come to consensus in the group is a different one.
> 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 am with you here.
Although I am not as nervous as you on these issues, because I think some things under time pressure must be more consultation based, I *am* nervous when I do not see everyone understand the difference between multi-stakeholder bottom-up and consultations.
I.e. if people knew the difference, demonstrated they understand the difference, and then explain WHY for some reasons they choose a consulting mechanism instead of bottom up, well, then we could maybe disagree on whether those arguments are correct or not.
But, as I wrote, I see too many (larger than zero) that do not understand the difference.
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the ccwg-internet-governance