Dear All, That is not the case, We may remove the anxiety of supporters of ST18 in the text relating to community mechanism/ empowerment and separate the issue from the traditional GAC advice by keeping the Bylaws as it is Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Oct 2015, at 01:28, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org> wrote:
Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> [2015-10-19 13:55:33 -0400]:
I add only one additional point – the statements below by the congressional staff who were in Dublin mirror precisely what the NTIA representatives have said in the CCWG on any number of occasions (most clearly, that I recall, in Paris in March). By all means, if you want the transition to fail, insist on deleting ST18. But then you will bear the blame. For one thing is certain – without ST18 the transition will fail.
If it does fail for this reason, it won't be the fault of the GAC for refusing to accept a ridiculous amendment to the by-laws which has nothing to do with the fears of governmental capture or turning ICANN into a "government-led" body, because as has been pointed out countless times, that just isn't a possibility with non-binding advice regardless of whether the Board is required to respond to it only if it delivers advice by consensus or not.
It will be the fault of the CCWG and the NTIA for insisting on an unjust amendment that makes no sense to most of the world — and in private conversations multiple people in ICANN will tell you that.
The outside world won't blame GAC. They will blame you.
Thanks, Paul, for holding a gun to the GAC's head. But do make sure it doesn't backfire on you and the NTIA.
-- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 sip:pranesh@ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh@cis-india.org https://twitter.com/pranesh
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community