[discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"
mg at telepresse.com
Fri Feb 14 09:50:12 UTC 2014
At 23:14 13/02/2014, George Sadowsky wrote:
>I assume that by "team leader" you mean that the GAC is the team,
>and the US could be a dominant voice in it.!
I mean the team:
- the (NTIA suggested/endorsed?) so-called "/1net" has selected
- as steering committees of its "MS" process and
- as alibi "Board" Members,
- from Academia (Jeanette Hofmann),
- CS (Subi Chaturvedi)
- and business (Andile Ngcaba)
- to be shepered by the punchbag (Fadi Chehade) [becoming
this way its own Judge!]
- of the 12 co-chair countries NTIA/Brazil have coopted as MSingly
representatives of the other "interested" Govs: (de jure members of
the Council of Governmental Advisors - good ridance of the others who
do not send a Minister).
- South Korea,
- United States of America.
(three more to come: Chna? Russia? India? South-Africa?
with seats for:
- two delegates of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon were also
- Mr. Hamadoun Touré, Secretary-General of UN ITU
- Wu Hongbo, Deputy Secretary-General of the UN Department of
Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA).
A good way to get rid of the GAC current format!
S, Business and Govs
>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
>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