RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Consolidated Response to Jeff & Anthony

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

I have to agree with Anthony here. It is unproductive to drag the GAC into our 
deliberations in this way. The GAC has had since 2006 to provide its policy 
advice to the ICANN Board, and it developed a set of principles for new gTLDs 
which was fully - some might say over-fully - taken into account during the 
development of the new gTLD policy process. As a matter of fact, as I have 
argued elsewhere, as representatives of _national_ governments the GAC has no 
special right to make _global_ policy for the global internet - national govts 
are just another interest group and that is why GAC is confined to an advisory 
capacity and why govts are not allowed on the board. Moreover, it has no 
authority to negotiate binding treaties and its pronouncements need not be 
ratified or even reviewed by national elected legislatures, so the GAC has a 
bit of a democratic deficit to contend with. In ICANN's structure, the GNSO is 
the primary policy making body for new gTLDs - and policy for new gTLDs is 
public policy - global public policy. We are free to listen to the GAC's advice 
and in many cases it is good advice. We should be especially mindful of GAC 
advice when it comes to matters such as antitrust law or conformity to 
legitimate, negotiated international treaties such as WTO trade agreements, 
where they do have authority. And if national governments really want to 
participate in these deliberations in a constructive way, they can and should 
get people into this WG and contribute on the same status as the rest of us, 
rather than issuing pronouncements from their silo.

--MM


But according to you I am mistaken: we are actually acting in response to the 
GAC Communique, or rather, to your interpretation of what it means.  And if we 
don't like your questionnaire, then you will ask the co-chairs to report us to 
the GAC.