[discuss] governments and rule of law (was: Possible approaches to solving...)
jcurran at istaff.org
Fri Feb 28 15:32:07 UTC 2014
On Feb 24, 2014, at 9:28 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.
I would like to revisit this point you made several days back, which notes
that "unless the GAC dissolves and and governmental participants involve
themselves directly in the policy development process... this problem will
not be solved."
You've provided two conditions (GAC dissolution, governments participating
in the policy development process), but is really _both_ that are required?
In particular, if governments become more active in the policy development
process (to the point of that becoming their normal mode of input), then is
GAC dissolution still really necessary in your view?
There may be some important value in helping governments maintain a high-level
awareness of various policy development efforts underway _across_ the entire
Internet identifier space (names, numbers, protocols) and suspect that the GAC
could serve an important role in that process. Also, when it comes to sharing
of other high-level information with governments (e.g. reports generated by
the various review/accountability processes), having a single place to do it
might be beneficial, as long as it is recognized as an information sharing
venue and not part of the formal policy development process.
I guess what I am asking is whether you would accept a slight modification of
your postulate to the following: "Until and unless the GAC ceases to provide
direct policy input to the Board and instead governmental participants involve
themselves directly in the policy development process on equal terms with all
other stakeholders, this problem will not be solved." Do you believe to be
true, or is GAC elimination a necessary condition for structural or pragmatic
Disclaimer: My views alone.
More information about the discuss