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

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Tue Feb 25 21:53:43 UTC 2014

Probably a good time to mention that while ICANN staff seem to prioritize comms staff and ministries, that might not be the 'end all/be all' as actually, ICANN should be welcoming Ministries from ICT, Econom Development. Foreign Affairs. 



Sent from my iPad

> On Feb 25, 2014, at 5:02 PM, "David Cake" <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>> On 24 Feb 2014, at 8:50 pm, Jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
>> At 12:59 24/02/2014, Steve Crocker wrote:
>>> John, et al,
>>> 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.
>> What is surprising is that the BoD, during its september meeting, when it planned its /1net strategy, did not planned a way to involve the GAC in the Sao Paulo preparation.
>    It isn't surprising to me - the Brazilian government, rather than the ICANN, is handling govt involvement in Sao Paulo preparation, and are handling govt participation. 
>    It IS, however, unfortunate. 
>    Once again, I say that govt policy positions are not unified, though many of our international governance models presume they are. And the Brazilian govt is not necessarily inviting the same govt representatives to Sao Paulo as would be invited to the GAC. I know this to be true for Australia (normally our GAC reps are from from the Dept of Communications, but the Foreign Affairs and Trade dept is supplying our reps for the Sao Paulo meeting). Their positions may well differ - and their experience with multi-stakeholder processes certainly will. 
>    Regards
>        David
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

More information about the discuss mailing list