Re: [council] FW: SO-AC-SG HIGH INTEREST TOPIC SESSION @ ICANN 51 in Los Angeles - A Reminder

[Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>]

I also support James' suggestion about the role of the GAC. A broad session
on accountability could just get diluted into bland generalities, the like
of which we can tune into any time at NetMundiale meetings or the WEF.
ICANN has a targeted and highly topical issue of acute current concern,
i.e. that we may be sleepwalking into a constitutional change that has not
been discussed throughout the model. Let's talk about that.

Re. the role of Council in 'aggregating stakeholder preferences', this
specific issue has been one of great concern within the NCSG over the past
weeks and we would welcome a proper public discussion.

Maria


On 28 August 2014 08:55, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> hi,
>
> I tend to see the council as the aggregation point for the various SGs
> groups, and the SGs as aggregation point for the various constituencies
> and interest groups.  Seems appropriate to me that the Council should
> collect, do the synthesis and pass things on.
>
>
> After all the council is the representative of the GNSO and its chair
> is the chair of he GNSO.  Who better to bring things together than our
> chair.  Sometimes we worry about the loss of reputation of the GNSO
> and its council.  Perhaps the effort to minimize it in the service of
> the constituencies is part of the issue.  And I do not mean to say it
> is a hierarchy, but rather a progressive aggregation, with each entity
> responsible to the representative of the groups it contains (except,
> of course, for the Board which claims not to be composed of
> representatives).
>
> If we don't use the council as an aggregation point, what we seem to
> say is that the task of aggregation and recommendation defaults to the
> staff and Board.  Personally, I don't think that is optimal.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 27-Aug-14 18:08, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > I have a question.
> >
> > In as much as the original request was made of SO and ACs leaders,
> > are you not funneling your recommendations through your
> > constituency or stakeholder group?  I would hate to see the
> > suggestions from those groups overlooked because staff looks at the
> > GNSO Council as some sort of hierarchical filter.
> >
> > Berard
> >
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT/uB+AAoJEOo+L8tCe36Hl9YH/jXrFQCbAGUcQwbIwNByRgD2
> sYFMXOxNFstVakpov7KQlR9IY4DlM9OMGeL8kSIFO79ifAd9ZU7YgjpEpS/3KmQr
> MyhqJXiqOtzLugQTcXf+keYnK7nvwmwmxfA4jFZMO4G5t+5YDsslLQ0X83nFFdIf
> tNwX6u8u7C5J7wIQR9QVZAUDzlV1BlPmHJXvXW+UdFr8S1kuPcdJ0nAt4zM1TT+4
> si2e2/TPmpzQb46iRpatyIlLPrdHN1GqV22wzmh/wZlwy4TlujOssNd6Nk/I2YS5
> FYAG2rihOhwxwcmCkaItlPxAPsSFYTxfDbGmdCStvCp2Je3z0oA0QHcg52P1amQ=
> =yWnq
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>