<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I should be clear that I am extremely cautious around the issues of representing or being seen to represent the GNSO since I am clearly aware of the sensitivities here.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Important to note that today’s call had participation from groups within the GNSO.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>To the extent that I end up in any dialogue with staff I am very clear on the structure and functioning of the GNSO.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Jonathan<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> john@crediblecontext.com [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> 29 May 2014 16:40<br><b>To:</b> Avri Doria; council@gnso.icann.org<br><b>Subject:</b> RE: Re: [council] Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Avri,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Now it is a party. With regard to your point, there is "far less support for, or agreement on, a bottom-up model" from whom? The BC strongly supports the concept, despite its difference from the more normal top-down process in most corporations.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>As for Jonathan, he is elected the chair of the GNSO Council and, perhaps, as the titular head of the GNSO in full, the increased use of him by the staff and CEO to stand as the actual head of the entire GNSO is a point of irritation for many.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>If I were Fadi, I'd want to do the same thing. It makes life neater and makes decisions more easily reached. But that is not the way we have and ought to work.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>My view.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Berard<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #C2C2C2 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 2.0pt;margin-left:3.0pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>--------- Original Message --------- <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Subject: Re: [council] Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process<br>From: "Avri Doria" <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>><br>Date: 5/29/14 8:14 am<br>To: <a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br><br><br>Hi,<br><br>On 29-May-14 10:55, <a href="mailto:john@crediblecontext.com">john@crediblecontext.com</a> wrote:<br>> By setting the agenda on a question of "4 or 5" we miss the larger point<br>> of empowering the muilti-stakeholder, consensus-driven, bottom-up<br>> process. If that is too messy a place for the IANA contract to reside<br>> (which, I think, is Fadi's goal in all of this), then so be it.<br>> <br><br><br>I think that while there is support for a multistakeholder process,<br>there is far less support for, or agreement on, a bottom-up model.<br><br>I believe senior management has more a representative model in mind.<br>For example according to the by-laws, we elect Jonathan as the chair of<br>the GNSO, he therefore speaks for the GNSO when he wears his Chair of<br>the GNSO hat. Obviously he can't be the spokesperson in everything, so<br>then the GNSO council should be able elect someone else to be the<br>representative for the issue under discussion. On the case of the IANA<br>committee, it is believed, we should be able to elect 2 people to<br>represent us.<br><br>That is, they expect us to be able to elect representatives.<br><br>On the other had, we have varying degrees of trust of elected<br>representatives. Some want to keep the power as close to the bottom as<br>they can, which is incompatible with entrusting representatives, and<br>they want to bring every issue back to vox populi.<br><br>Both the representative model and the 'check with the people before very<br>decision' model are multistakeholder, and both can even be described as<br>bottom-up, but one is a lot more bottom-up than the other.<br><br>The problem with comparative body count for the committees, is they are<br>offering a representative model whereas many in GNSO seem to want a more<br>of an ambassadorial model where the 'ambassador' to the group from each<br>SG has to be in constant contact with her capital before she can speak.<br><br>avri<o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div></body></html>