[NA-Discuss] Issues for Paris

[Dominik Filipp]

-----Original Message-----
From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of
Jacqueline A. Morris
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:03 AM
To: Evan Leibovitch
Cc: NA Discuss
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Issues for Paris

> Jacqueline Morris wrote:
>
> yes, the GAC is very powerful without any
> voting Board seat. And one of the reasons
> that I consistently ask WHY it is necessary
> to have a voting seat to have influence.
> I think that there's a concept that the vote
> means something in and of itself - honestly,
> if we have 40% of the Board seats , we can
> still lose EVERY vote if we are not respected,
> and have no influence! Whereas as you see with
> the GAC, you don't need to vote if you can
> persuade the people who have votes to vote your way.

Jacqueline, do you mean this seriously or is this just a joke? The GAC
as an official governmental body and as such IMHO it has by its nature
an exclusively unique status within ICANN. If At-Large had 40% of the
Board seats and still lost every vote then it would be solely the
problem of At-Large from which it could still recover after making some
necessary internal changes. Without any seat At-Large can be doing its
best and there is no guarantee to achieve anything, that is a
second-class status.

And what about to cancel all biased seats so that all the bodies are
given the same chance to persuade an independent group of people with
voting right. And what are the biased seats? The seats that, for
instance, voted for the Verisign agreement, or for the degradation of
the At-Large status to a second-class advisory body.

A bit shocking for me, Jacqueline

Dominik