[CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Rec 11 - GAC Advice (first reading)
Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams
ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Mon Jan 18 19:37:51 UTC 2016
> Regarding formal advice from any Advisory Committee (AC), many commenters
> reiterated that a rationale should be a requirement for advice to be
> considered by the board.
During my brief involvement with one AC, not the GAC, nor the SSAC, nor
the RSSAC, it was evident that that AC's ability to do much more than
respond to proposals arising elsewhere was lacking.
Granted, there are issues with funding for many participatory portions of
the ByLaws entities, and there are issues with focus as well.
However, in a less than perfect system, a rational for not setting one's
hair afire is effort wasted. The consumer of "advice" from any AC is the
Board, which should not need any rational beyond the barest statement of
"do X" or "don't do X" to begin consideration of whether or not to under
take "X", and, should the Board require, it can ask for the rational(s)
for the advice offered.
If what you're looking for is pleading to the peanut galleries, some text
addressed to readers not being advised, say Kieren's readers, this really
is someone else's PR problem.
Don't sneak extra cost on a system composed primarily of volunteers (and
governments) as this necessarily reduces the efficacy of those, generally
to the benefit of lobbyists and their clients, who have material interest
in outcomes, and who form, as the AoC observed, "a group of participants
that engage in ICANN's processes to a greater extent than Internet users
P.S. The absurdity of the "many commenters" wishes for a "required rational"
is immediately apparent when the advice originates from the RSSAC or SSAC,
as that advice is not offered to the common reader (pace Ms. Woolf), but to
the Board, who are, or who are supported by, readers with clue.
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community