[CCWG-ACCT] Creative solutions for Rec.11

Edward Morris egmorris1 at toast.net
Sat Jan 30 21:14:22 UTC 2016

 Hi Jorge,
 Thanks for your response and the conversation.
 -But let's not go down that road: if we count who participates and extend it to other constituencies we will also see the "same faces" all over again: that is a consequence of the principle of voluntary participation.
 Agreed. But here's the difference:
 I'm a member of the NCUC, the NCSG, I'm on the GNSO Council and a participant on the CCWG.
 If you want to know how the NCUC developed its policies and learn about the positions taken by our individual members as we did so you can access the NCUC Discuss archive here: http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/ and view the deliberations of the NCUC Executive Committee here:  http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/ .
 If you would like to see how these discussion then move and take place at the SG level you can view the NCSG Discuss list here: http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A0=NCSG-DISCUSS ,  and the deliberations of the NCSG Policy Committee here ( http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg ).
 The NCSG also includes the NPOC and as I represent them on the GNSO Council I also regularly read their public discussion to learn the views of their individual members. I can do that here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/npoc-discuss/ .
 Things then move onto the GNSO Council and you can view our Council discussions here: https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/.
 ?Not only that but EVERY one of these groups have monthly calls that are recorded and archived in both audio and written transcript form.
 I don't have to guess when I need to determine how and why a policy position developed, who was in favour of the policy and who was against it and what compromises, if necessary, were made to get consensus approval and what  the degree of that consensus was, in de facto as well as de jure terms. In the NCUC, NPOC, NCSG and GNSO this is all public record.
 Why can't I get the same information from the GAC? I submit that if the GAC is to become more than an advisory body it needs to start playing by the same rules as the rest of us. Not because of any institutional rivalry but because the global public deserves no less.


In the GAC this is "compensated" with our voluntary high consensus threshold which requires to include any interested delegation into a consensus.
 All of the groups mentioned above operate on variations of consensus. Yet unlike the GAC with these groups I'm able to see how consensus is formed. Without transparency there is no accountability,  and IMHO we can not afford to give oversight of Board decisions at a higher level, or more than an advisory role,  to a body so opaque we have to "trust" members to tell us what is going on. 
 ?That leads to situations as now where I have some GAC members telling me one thing, you something quite different, and I have no idea who to believe. It may be just a case of perception because the people involved I know to have a very high level of personal integrity.
 In the interest of moving things forward in the spirit of cooperation and mutual respect I once again weigh in to support Paul's request that the GAC "disclose the current split of opinion within the GAC regarding Rec. 11".
 Ed Morris


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160130/86bbd89c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list