I think that the key statement is "Unless the GAC believes that ICANN has been sufficiently responsive to their concerns, I do not see how the Guidebook can be adopted on June 20th in Singapore in a manner that ensures continuing global governmental support of ICANN." For better or worse, without something resembling global governmental support for ICANN, or at least tacit support by not advocating some other form of governance over Internet names and numbers, ICANN has a dubious future. Alan At 07/05/2011 09:47 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
Um, the headshop has weighed in, yet again. And this time the message "listen to the GAC...or else." cannot be mistaken.
Not quite the action most would consider as definitive of a multistakeholder model. However, in the short term, it might be a necessary corrective for the skew identified to contracted parties in policy-making.
Carlton
============================ Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:
*Keynote Remarks by Lawrence E. Strickling* *Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information* *Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) * *Washington, DC* *May 5, 2011*
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/presentations/2011/Strickling_GigaNet_05052011.html
Some of the content might greatly affect that will happen in Singapore. Kind regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org