RE: [council] Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Avri,

>From my perspective, you raise an important additional / related point here
on parity.

To the extent that the GNSO "gets" its 4 or more participants, what does
this mean for the other SO & ACs? 
Also, if any issue in the group goes beyond discussion and is taken to a
vote, how many votes per SO / AC?


Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: 25 May 2014 16:35
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed
Next Steps for the Process


Hi,

I understand why many think that we need 4 reps, and that seems like it
should be easy to agree with.

My thoughts go to parity.  Are we also arguing that all other groups should
have 4 (numerical parity), or are we saying each according to their needs
(some sort of social/organizational parity).  For example, do we support
that At-Large, which is organized around regions, should get 5.  Needs based
parity is ok with me, I just want to be clear.

I also am concerned that we seem to believe that it is impossible for each
house to find someone who can neutrally and equitably represent the
interests, needs and viewpoints of both sides of a house.  Though this is
perhaps more a question for the GNSO review.

avri