[gnso-whois-wg] GAC role? (was: Statement of Interest)

[Dan Krimm <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 5:49 PM +0200 5/1/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:

>On process : after the extensive discussions within the GNSO and the GAC
>separately, it is important to bring the different categories of
>stakeholders together to address the problem in a joint effort rather than
>in a "silo" approach. This is why as a GAC member, I am pleased
>to participate in this working group.


Bertrand,

This is an important consideration, as a few people here have already
mentioned GAC in regard to the OPOC WG, perhaps with an implication that
GAC has some sort of veto authority over the results of our deliberations.

Can you clarify your impression of the dynamics of authority vis-a-vis GNSO
and GAC?  I was not aware that GAC had any formal veto authority over
recommendations of GNSO per se, and as a relative newcomer I would like to
understand this better.

If GAC would have differing views from GNSO with regard to OPOC (and Whois
policy, generally), it would seem that GNSO ought to start any such
negotiations from its strongest position, rather than pre-dilute its own
position in anticipation of some further compromise, if such compromise is
even appropriate in the first place.  (What in GAC's charter gives that
body an interest in the workings of this WG?  It could be that this WG
comes out with a policy that reduces GAC's interests.)

I am not that familiar with the consensus-building process surrounding
ICANN's multitude of advisory groups (it appears to be rather informal, if
it exists at all), but if any "hardball" is involved, then GNSO should
"play just as hard" as any other group, and stick to its own silo until it
is time for the silos to come together to negotiate, as "the extremes
define the middle."

Unless GNSO constituencies could have input into GAC deliberations...

Dan

PS -- What about other ICANN advisory groups?  If GAC has any role in our
deliberations, why not ALAC too?  Or perhaps GAC should begin to
incorporate NGOs formally and directly into its deliberative process like
WIPO, etc., so that its own representative structure reaches out to a
broader range of stakeholders (as GNSO makes an initial attempt to do, with
its six constituencies, though I feel there remains much room for
improvement).  But, that of course is tangential from our narrow mandate in
this WG.  Please forgive my digression, it is merely contextual.