I pretty much agree with Patrik - also, GAC has an established role in ICANN policy development. Any oversight body should be external to ICANN and the GAC is not, this new G12 would be (how members are selected... this could be fun to watch!) I still think there's confusion over the various contracts between the US govt and ICANN/IANA/Verisign. Reding seems to be asking the Obama administration to end all. But the JPA is only a small part. Becky Burr and Marilyn Cade's paper about the Internet¹s authoritative root <http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/burr-cade.pdf> also worth considering. Adam
On Tue, 5 May 2009 18:07:16 +1200 (MAGST), Franck Martin <franck.martin@gmail.com> wrote:
And what is wrong with the GAC?
From my personal perspective, the GAC lacks authority and, in a certain way, credibility. Depending how important ICANN is considered under the local political context, some governments will send senior officials. Some will send junior officials. Some come from the telecoms ministry, some from the economy ministry or foreign affairs, some from the telecom regulation authority. Some have a well defined political agenda, others only a tourism agenda.
IMHO, the GAC crowd is too large and heterogeneous to come up with a clearly defined policy. At one stage, we need limited number of serious high level diplomats. Now, how they are chosen is a different matter. And a very scary one I do not wish to solve.
Patrick -- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/patrickvw Identica: http://identi.ca/patrickv
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org