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

Shatan, Gregory S. GShatan at reedsmith.com
Wed Apr 9 19:02:21 UTC 2014

I expect that each SG (including the CSG) would have no significant problems agreeing on a single representative (but agree that if they couldn't, there would be a bigger issue).  It might compromise the richness of the experience, but one can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Once we go below one rep per SG in the GNSO, then I think we risk being less than "good," though I'm sure that any such reps would use their best efforts.

-----Original Message-----
From: ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 2:24 PM
To: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] [discuss] ICANN proposal for NTIA transition published


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 maybe not.


ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org

                                                                * * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in
error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or
use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
person. Thank you for your cooperation.

                                                                * * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
                                                                        Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list