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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 29-May-14 10:55, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 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.
>  


I think that while there is support for a multistakeholder process,
there is far less support for, or agreement on,  a bottom-up model.

I believe senior management has more a representative model in mind.
For example according to the by-laws,  we elect Jonathan as the chair of
the GNSO, he therefore speaks for the GNSO when he wears his Chair of
the GNSO hat.  Obviously he can't be the spokesperson in everything, so
then the GNSO council should be able elect someone else to be the
representative for the issue under discussion.  On the case of the IANA
committee, it is believed, we should be able to elect 2 people to
represent us.

That is, they expect us to be able to elect representatives.

On the other had, we have varying degrees of trust of elected
representatives.  Some want to keep the power as close to the bottom as
they can, which is incompatible with entrusting representatives, and
they want to bring every issue back to vox populi.

Both the representative model and the 'check with the people before very
decision' model are multistakeholder, and both can even be described as
bottom-up, but one is a lot more bottom-up than the other.

The problem with comparative body count for the committees, is they are
offering a representative model whereas many in GNSO seem to want a more
of an ambassadorial model where the 'ambassador' to the group from each
SG has to be in constant contact with her capital before she can speak.

avri