RE: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT

["Paul McGrady \(Policy\)" <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1 Julf  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Johan Helsingius
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 12:53 PM
To: Drazek, Keith; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: WUKnoben
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT


Keith,

> As we discuss Recommendation 11, everyone should remember that the 2/3 
> threshold (an increase of two Board votes) was a tradeoff for getting 
> the GAC consensus definition incorporated into the bylaws.

Thanks for that reminder - it goes to the core of my issue with
recommendations 1, 10 and 11. It appears as if (and I hope I am
wrong) that the GAC is using the ICANN transition as an opportunity to
increase its power and influence in ICANN. To me, such a situation doesn't
serve the best interests of the Internet community as a whole, and I don't
think we should accept it just because we don't want to be the ones to
jeopardize the transition. I think we should strive for a suitable balance
that works for all parties involved and ensures a multistakeholder future
without risk of either external or internal capture.

That is of course only my own, personal (and probably naive) opinion.

        Julf