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

[Alejandro Pisanty]

Mike,

all good points IMO. There should be a separate 2Net meeting for non-ICANN
Internet governance issues. It boggles the mind, doesn't it? OTOH it is
good for the Internet this way; it frees the APWG, M3AAWG and so many other
organizations from the encumberment of endless, fruitless circular
discussion and leaves them free to actually fix something.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty


On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Mike Roberts <mmr at darwin.ptvy.ca.us> wrote:

> Brazil is an IG meeting and we need to distinguish between IG governance
> mechanisms and ICANN governance mechanisms.  They are not the same.
>
> Under the rubric of I* unified effort going forward toward a reformulated
> IG, post Brazil, then ICANN is one of the stakeholders, not the stakeholder.
>
> Which does raise the question, referred to below, of who speaks for the
> various DNS stakeholders in the I* consortium.
>
> Milton's assertion that the ICANN constituency groups have a voice
> superior to that of the Board's doesn't hold water.  Regardless of whether
> it is constituency positions, or the recommendation of the GNSO Council,
> these are only some of several voices which the Board must consider in
> arriving at a consensus ICANN policy position.
>
> From a legal perspective, which may or may not be valued by those on this
> list, only an approved Board resolution represents the position of the
> organization.
>
> - Mike
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 24, 2014, at 6:28 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. Put differently, as long as GAC meets in a room
> in isolation from all other stakeholder groups and runs a parallel,
> separate process, and has the bylaw-granted authority to intervene at the
> end, the current problems will remain.
> >
> > John Curran made an important point, however, that is being obscured in
> this discussion. It was not just that GAC is culpable for intervening in
> the final stage, but also that the ICANN board is culpable for turning
> itself into the final negotiator of policy rather than ratifier of what the
> bottom up process does. In other words, the board has a tendency to
> position itself as the "DNS policy board" rather than the board that just
> runs the organization that supports the policy process. The policy process
> should be driven by stakeholder groups.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at 1net.org
> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>



-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140224/9e6ba3db/attachment.html>