[discuss] governments and rule of law (was: Possible approaches to solving...)

Fri Feb 28 15:32:07 UTC 2014

On Feb 24, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Steve Crocker
> 
>> There is work underway to bring the GAC earlier into the policy 
>> development process so their input is available during and not just after the PDP concludes.
> 
> People have  been saying that since the release of the first Accountability and Transparency Review Team report, two years ago. 
> I myself have seen zero change since then. The absence of change is not for lack of trying: the problem is structural. Until and unless GAC dissolves and governmental participants involve themselves directly in the policy development process on equal terms with all other stakeholders, this problem will not be solved.

Milton - 

   I would like to revisit this point you made several days back, which notes
   that "unless the GAC dissolves and and governmental participants involve 
   themselves directly in the policy development process... this problem will 
   not be solved."

   You've provided two conditions (GAC dissolution, governments participating
   in the policy development process), but is really _both_ that are required?
   In particular, if governments become more active in the policy development
   process (to the point of that becoming their normal mode of input), then is   
   GAC dissolution still really necessary in your view?  

   There may be some important value in helping governments maintain a high-level 
   awareness of various policy development efforts underway _across_ the entire 
   Internet identifier space (names, numbers, protocols) and suspect that the GAC 
   could serve an important role in that process.  Also, when it comes to sharing 
   of other high-level information with governments (e.g. reports generated by
   the various review/accountability processes), having a single place to do it
   might be beneficial, as long as it is recognized as an information sharing 
   venue and not part of the formal policy development process.

   I guess what I am asking is whether you would accept a slight modification of
   your postulate to the following: "Until and unless the GAC ceases to provide 
   direct policy input to the Board and instead governmental participants involve 
   themselves directly in the policy development process on equal terms with all 
   other stakeholders, this problem will not be solved."  Do you believe to be 
   true, or is GAC elimination a necessary condition for structural or pragmatic
   reasons? 

Thanks!
/John

Disclaimer:  My views alone.