RE: [soac-mapo] Another proposal for discussion...

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

This is a very useful and clarifying description of the GAC's situation, Frank. 
Although I am familiar enough with governmental and intergovernmental processes 
to already know most of what you state, I think it's good and important to be 
apprised of this in such a direct and clear way.  

In particular, this line is key:

> -----Original Message-----
> It may well be that trying to find a Rec6WG
> consensus on a report by the end of next week that includes full GAC
> support is mission impossible. That does not mean that it should not be
> attempted, nor does it mean that the report would be less significant.
> What it does mean is that GAC members taking part in the discussions
> cannot guarantee that the GAC will not come back later with criticisms
> of either a Rec6WFG or Board position on MAPO.

My sentiments exactly, and really the only realistic way to go about this.

I think the problem here comes _not_ from the inevitable difficulties that GAC 
will have finding a consensus or from the inevitable criticisms that might be 
made by individual members or groups of GAC members, but from our 
_expectations_ regarding what the existence of those criticisms mean. 

The point is, this group has to develop a proposal, quickly, and the Board has 
to act on it with a decision and implementation, quickly. It is inevitable 
under those circumstances that various people from different stakeholder groups 
will be not entirely happy with the outcome. What we must do is abandon the 
idea that any one stakeholder group, including governments or any one 
government, has some kind of veto power over the outcome. Going back to my 
exchange with Stuart Lawley, if even the GAC is not of one mind, or requires 
long and convoluted processes to determine what its members can support, then 
it's absurd for this group to base its outcomes on what it thinks will or will 
not be acceptable to "the GAC." We have to try to propose something that as 
acceptable as possible to all of us involved. That's the best we can do. 

--MM