[governance] [igf_members] MAG Renewal

[David Cake]

Likewise, I spend most of my time at ICANN within the GNSO. The GNSO itself is very much multi-stakeholder - besides the range of civil society groups represented by NCSG councillors like myself, there is a wide range of commercial groups represented, and the GNSO spends a reasonable amount of its time liaising with other groups such as the GAC, SSAC, the ICANN board, etc. But I have very little idea about what actually goes on within other silos. The problem is not so much constituency-ism, or lack of engagement with other stakeholders, but lack of engagement with other silos. I spend lots of time engaging beyond my constituency at ICANN -- but engaging with the other constituencies within the GNSO silo consumes enough time and energy I have not much left over for engagement beyond the GNSO silo. But this engagement beyond the silo is crucial for a functional organisation and process. 

Regards

David

On 16/05/2013, at 6:46 AM, Keith Davidson <keith at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 16/05/2013 8:05 a.m., Roland Perry wrote:
>> I've always been in favour of spending the whole week ("helicopter
>> lobbying" isn't my scene), although the start has been suffering from
>> significant creep in recent years. Once upon a time you might get away
>> with arriving on Saturday, for participating Sunday, but now it's been
>> pushed back from even that (in Beijing four tracks on Saturday, and
>> others even earlier).
>> 
>> The problem with attending different silos is the way the agenda has
>> become increasingly arranged around constituency-ism (so if you want to
>> attend "your" constituency then you can't do that as well attend
>> others), and with as many as ten tracks simultaneously.
> 
> 
> Exactly my point.
> 
> At a personal level - I spend most of my time in the ccNSO silo, and have a good understanding of the ccTLD communities views on all sorts of issues, take for example, WHOIS. I have some idea of the GAC's view, and no idea of any other constituency views on this topic. It would make more sense to have the multistakeholder dialogue on this topic so I could appreciate the range of opinion.
> 
> At an operational level - the WHOIS review team came to an ICANN meeting and had to do 11 separate presentations to work through all constituencies - surely this is a waste of everyones time, most especially the review teams, and surely it is symptomatic of being non-multistakeholder in nature as it is a series of silo'ised discussions.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Keith
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t