[ccwg-internet-governance] [discuss] ICANN proposal for NTIA transition published
avri at acm.org
Wed Apr 9 18:24:25 UTC 2014
On 09-Apr-14 12:14, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
> In sum, any time the GNSO is asked to put forward fewer representatives
> than the number of its parts, it’s a problem and will not yield the same
> results, even with all the good will in the world.
Yeah, but if a GNSO SG cannot agree on a single representative, there is
a much bigger problem in my view.
That is why I argue for the 1-5 member at the AC/SO level and let each
pick the formula that works best for it - e.g. if anything I would
expect that ALAC/At-Large would use the geographical criteria. But
More information about the ccwg-internet-governance