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

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.!

No!

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).

       - Argentina,
       - Brazil,
       - France,
       - Germany,
       - Indonesia,
       - South Korea,
       - Tunisia,
       - Turkey
       - 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 
announced.
       - 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!

M G

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 
>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.
>
>George
>
>
>
>
>
>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
> >