[discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"

George Sadowsky george.sadowsky at gmail.com
Thu Feb 13 22:14:53 UTC 2014

I assume that by “team leader” you mean that the GAC is the team, and the US could be a dominant voice in it.

You probably have not studied the GAC as an advisory committee or seen it in operation.  The GAC has 100++++ members and, although the US has a strong voice in it, the US in no way overpowers other sets of voices.  

Second, for the GAC to give the Board consensus advice, there has to be consensus among GAC members.  If you look at the instances where this has happened, you will probably conclude that consensus ca be difficult to reach unless the issue is of real concern to a large number of its members.  There are balances of interests and of power in the GAC also.

Third, the ICANN Board is not obligated to take GAC advice.  If it does not do so, the Board is held to a very high standard of explaining why it did not take the advice, and the Board takes such advice very seriously.  Nevertheless, the Board has rejected GAC advice in the past, and it may do so again in the future.  That arrangement is a part of ICANN’s multistakeholder balancing act, and it is purposeful.

Finally, I believe that ICANN does have a raison d’être that is non-political for its existence.  In addition to executing the IANA functions, it oversees the operation of the unique domain name space, with contractual arrangements for registrars and registries.  It has just overseen an expansion of that space that for the first time has introduced so-called internationalized global domains into the root.  Management of that space in a manner that preserves and enhances the security and stability of the Internet though effective management of its system of identifiers should be quite sufficient as a non-political reason for its existence. 


On Feb 13, 2014, at 4:06 PM, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com> wrote:

> At 17:30 13/02/2014, George Sadowsky wrote:
>> A. I am personally in favor of option 3, and have been for some time.
> It seems that option 3 (if read the NTIA statement in support of the European position) means that the US go out, gather a few MS fellow govs and big corps around, and come back as a dominant team leader?
> ICANN is already internationized (GAC). What ICANN lacks is a non political reason d'être. If you "de-nationalize" it, what will be left?
> M G

More information about the discuss mailing list