Re: [soac-mapo] Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re: morality issues

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I support the model of cross-community discussion groups, such as this CWG.  In 
certain circumstances, they are a very good idea.  I think that it worked very 
well in this case.  

Unfortunately, some folks have been characterizing this group as something that 
it is not.  It is not a policy-making group and our report was not a 
pronouncement with some sort of imprimatur of the will of ICANN community.  It 
should be viewed for what it is/was -- a group of interested volunteers getting 
together to discuss potential solutions to an issue based on the request of 
some of the leaders of various ICANN supporting organizations/advisory 
committees.  We were successful in offering up some good suggestions and 
proposals, but the work has never been ratified by the policy-making body and 
should not be viewed as bottom-up policy-making.  Therefore, if the ICANN Board 
disagrees with a recommendation of this group with a clear rationale, I don't 
view it as an affront to the bottom-up policy making model as others have been 
articulating.  

My concern is that if folks oversell the nature of the group and try to deem 
this kind of a discussion group as one with a policy-making function, then the 
those with the actual policy-making responsibility under ICANN's Bylaws might 
choose not to support groups like the CWG for fear that the work will be viewed 
as policy-making without the due process protections built into the Bylaws.  In 
order to foster future discussion groups like the CWG, I suggest that we not 
suggest that they are something that they are not.  

Thanks.

Jon


On Nov 28, 2010, at 5:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Thanks, Frank.
> I do understand the point you are making. Problem is, it’s incorrect. The CWG 
> was officially co-convened by the Chair of GAC along with the chairs of ALAC 
> and GNSO, and there was active representation of several GAC members in it. 
> Moreover, the charter of this group was approved by the GAC chair and passed 
> by the full GAC for its approval. Therefore while you may be right to say 
> that it is still unclear whether GAC as a body would fully endorse the 
> results of the report and its recommendations, it is plainly not correct to 
> say that “the GAC” did not participate in it. It did.
>  
> Beyond that, on a more human level, I wonder whether you have thought through 
> the longer term implications of what you seem to be saying/doing. Many 
> people, not just myself, would take this kind of distancing as further 
> evidence of the dysfunctionality of current arrangements for multistakeholder 
> cooperation in ICANN. As long as representatives of national governments hold 
> themselves apart from the process and (through strategic behavior) seek a 
> special, privileged influence over policy outcomes, then there will be major 
> challenges to the legitimacy of both the GAC and the policy outputs that come 
> out of the board on any issue. That lack of good faith process can only hold 
> back the internet.
>  
> Certainly, if governments want to make these decisions on their own, on their 
> own terms, they can do it. But then they’d have to be big boys and girls and 
> negotiate and pass a binding international treaty. And that would require you 
> to follow constitutional constraints, due process requirements and 
> ratification processes of the member states. If you’re not willing to do 
> that, then perhaps you need to take these processes a bit more seriously. You 
> can’t have it both ways.
>  
> Cheers,
> --MM
>  
> (p.s., if you do want to go the treaty route, I look forward to discussing 
> the First Amendment implications with the U.S. representatives.)
>  
>  
> From: Frank March [mailto:Frank.March@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 3:51 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller; Antony Van Couvering; soac-mapo
> Cc: Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re: 
> morality issues
>  
> Without wishing to seem pedantic, the GAC did not participate in the Rec6WG. 
> As I was at pains to point out on a number of occasions, some GAC members 
> including myself were part of the group but not able to speak on behalf of 
> the GAC.  I would like to think that the overall direction of the report 
> would have strong GAC support but this has not been tested.
>  
> Because of the timing issues of getting the report ready in time for the 
> Council retreat, it was never proposed that the report be taken formally to 
> the GAC for discussion or endorsement.  My view is that it it is the Board's 
> response to the report and the outcomes therefrom that would engage the GAC, 
> not the report itself.
>  
> Given that the issues raised are still 'live' and the work is carrying on it 
> would certainly be possible to have a discussion in Cartagena.  I have a 
> feeling however that endorsement of the report from the GAC would be 
> difficult to achieve.  It might well be considered by some members not to be 
> an appropriate action for the GAC to take.
>  
> Best wishes, Frank
>  
> ----
> Frank March
> Senior Specialist Advisor
> Communications and IT Policy
> Ministry of Economic Development
> 33 Bowen Street, PO Box 1473
> WELLINGTON, New Zealand
> Mobile: (+64) 021 494165
>  
>  
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
> Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Monday, 29 November 2010 4:48 a.m.
> To: Antony Van Couvering; soac-mapo
> Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re: 
> morality issues
> 
> The disturbing thing about this exchange of letters is that both sides seem 
> to treat this working group – which GAC participated in – as if it did not 
> contribute “thoughtful proposals” to resolve the stated concerns.
>