[WP1] FW: There is no consensus on the role of Advisory Committees according to our own public comment paper which analyzed public comment

[Grace Abuhamad]

Forwarding on Robin¹s behalf.

From:  Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
Date:  Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 9:52 AM
To:  Accountability Cross Community
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org>, <wp1 at icann.org>
Cc:  Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>, Hillary Jett
<hillary.jett at icann.org>, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org>, Jordan
Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
Subject:  There is no consensus on the role of Advisory Committees according
to our own public comment paper which analyzed public comment

Resending, since my email is NOT posting to the list:

There is an open issue that we haven't yet dealt with (although people were
asking to in our last session).  According to the public comment analysis
tool, there is no consensus on the role of Advisory Committees and there is
concern in the community for dilution of authority and influence of SO
community.  Comments expressed support for treating SOs and ACs along the
lines in the current board structure.  This is beside the fact we seem to be
moving away away from voting and toward consensus but about weight in
decision making.  We need to deal with the fact we don't have consensus on
these points.

The below statements are in our paper on "the model" which analyzed public
comment:

€ Lack of consensus on the voting allocations between SOs and ACs.  Comments
expressed concern for ³dilution and authority and influence of SO
community². Most commenters on this issue expressed support for voting
allocations along the lines of ICANN¹s existing board structure.

€ Lack of consensus on the composition of the community within the Model
(e.g. role of Advisory Committees). Comments indicated concern over the
possible ³duality² of the governmental role in the Model. Several comments
expressed concern that providing votes to GAC will fail to meet NTIA
requirements.

We haven't gone through these papers which analyzed public comment yet.

So, WHEN are we going to address these concerns expressed in public comment
on which there is no consensus in the community?  Today?

Thanks,
Robin


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20151021/3cd9262a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20151021/3cd9262a/signature.asc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20151021/3cd9262a/smime.p7s>