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

Patrik Fältström paf at frobbit.se
Wed Apr 9 19:38:48 UTC 2014

On 9 apr 2014, at 20:24, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> 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.

I am with Avri here, or rather, I would like to know what all AC/SO say, in similar words as we have heard from GNSO.

I think we have MUCH higher values at stake than fighting over representation.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20140409/5a37f575/signature.asc>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list