*The GAC communiqué from Brussels, and Evan's interesting remarks, prompt me to make these comments:* * * *- Inequality between the GAC and other ACs or SOs is a reality, whether or not we consider this is justified. Sovereign states can apply national law, and are (usually) bound by international law. ICANN's other stakeholders have a vague moral right to represent segments of the community, the only reference being the ICANN By-laws, which have no international standing, and are legally binding only in the USA.* * * *- This discrepancy is further accentuated by the AoC. We cannot escape this fact. So the question is: apart from the GAC, can other stakeholders achieve a better balance, and how can they do that? I think there's only one way, which is to have cross-constituency agreement on major issues, which so far has proven difficult.* * * *- One area where the ALAC could take a leadership role and strive to gain other stakeholders to its cause, is the general area of "the public interest". Example: in the DAG, some elements may be defensible from an industry point of view, but possibly detrimental to the public interest (privacy, consumer protection, human and civic rights). If we detect a dividing line between, say, the GAC and other stakeholders, for instance regarding fundamental human rights (e.g. religious persuasions, atheism or other philosophical positions, sexual preference, etc), then we should strive to define a broad platform and present it to other stakeholders, seeking their support. Ideally, this could then become a "ICANN minus GAC" position, which would carry more weight than some ALAC-only statement.* * * *Regards,* *Jean-Jacques.* On 4 March 2011 22:48, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
The two components of the message that stuck out to me:
- The emphasis for more *bilateral* discussions. There are more stakeholders than just GAC and the ICANN Board. I welcome the opportunity to more deeply involve the GAC in ICANN processes, but there must be more than lip-service paid to the multi-stakeholder model going forward. As we saw from its near-obsession with trademark issues, in some ways even the GAC can be gamed.
- "*The GAC is committed to take whatever time is required to achieving these essential public policy objectives** -- Saved for the second-last sentence of the statement, this rightfully holds ICANN accountable for its lack of sufficiently inclusive community engagement in early gTLD policy development, and the deliberate shunning of community advice at many stages. It should send a shiver down the spine of most GNSO members, to whom the word "delay" is now officially an obscenity.
-- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac