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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

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.