<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
I suppose my position on this was so far that the GAC should be given an advisory role to the community mechanism but in a non-privilidged manner, no special bylaw to the CMSM.
<div class="">And I believe that this is how all the AC’s should be treated, I agree with the point that if we further engrain the special status of the GAC into accountability mechanisms we are just perpetuating the issues that we know we already have.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I would strongly oppose them having any participation in the community mechanism and them being given any special advisory role to it, but I could live with them (And all other AC’s) being given an advisory role to the CMSM in place of their participation,
but with all Acs on an equal footing in that.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Happy to hear reasons why that would not work.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">-James </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On 31 Aug 2015, at 07:46, William Drake <<a href="mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com" class="">wjdrake@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
Hi
<div class=""><br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">On Aug 30, 2015, at 9:10 PM, Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton.mueller@PUBPOLICY.GATECH.EDU" class="">milton.mueller@PUBPOLICY.GATECH.EDU</a>> wrote:</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
Two things to avoid like the plague: <o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div class="" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span class="">1)<span class="" style="font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span>Giving GAC BOTH privileged advisory status AND participation in the community mechanism<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div class="" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span class="">2)<span class="" style="font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span>Giving GAC a similar privileged advisory status over the community mechanism (e.g., GAC would not participate directly but would “advise” the empowered
community, which would translate into an effective veto, delay or dilution of the community’s powers).<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div class="" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
<div class="" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
Well, it seems unlikely that the special advisory power would be taken away. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
To put it mildly</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
So if we don’t oppose their inclusion in the community mechanism, there is a risk that they will get both.
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
Sounds right</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
Indeed, it seems highly likely to me that many members of GAC will respond to the CCWG dilemma by demanding option 1) or 2). Still not sure how to play this.</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
<div class="">At the ICANN Studienkreis meeting it seemed clear that not changing the existing balance of power is viewed as essential to avoiding ‘destabilization’, the red line framing de jour. So maybe adopt that as a framing and deploy it to our ends?</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Bill</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</body>
</html>