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

[john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Jonathan,
 
As we have seen in other areas (e.g., the proliferation of staff-initiated 
cross community working groups, the call for primary comment from the Council 
on issues of interest to the constituencies, the reliance on outside experts), 
ICANN is moving to rely on credentials and hierarchy to accelerate its decision 
making time frames in the face of political need.  We ought to avoid succumbing 
to such stimulus & response by offering up a proposal or two of our own that 
aligns with the expectations of the constituencies and stakeholder groups we 
represent.
 
By setting the agenda on a question of "4 or 5" we miss the larger point of 
empowering the muilti-stakeholder, consensus-driven, bottom-up process.  If 
that is too messy a place for the IANA contract to reside (which, I think, is 
Fadi's goal in all of this), then so be it.
 
Berard
 
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: RE: [council] Enhancing ICANN 
Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process
From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 5/29/14 7:44 am
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


 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