-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@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