On 14 August 2012 16:57, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>wrote:
I'm unable to envision an *enlightened, informed* administration risking the consequences of making changes requested by governments unreasonably conditional.
Those qualifiers [emphasis mine] make all the difference IMO. So far, evidence of enlightenment and awareness is scarce, as witnessed by the congressional hearings latest December (to which the ALAC responded). What is just as possible, based on observation, is cynical manipulation of processes to keep other would-be actors at bay, both internal and external. The US DoC may not really prefer the multi-stakeholder model better than any other, but cheerleading it serves as a useful tactic to quell the aspirations of other countries who have woken up to the fact that the US is no longer the home of a plurality of the world's Internet users. It may be considered distasteful to have this debate enter into the realm of foreign policy, but I think it is unrealistic to believe that three years from now global Internet governance -- and the evaluation of ICANN's suitability to continue in its roles -- will still be considered a purely US domestic matter. And it is similarly unreasonable to expect that the ALAC, as one of the most geographically balanced stakeholder entities within ICANN, will condone -- let alone encourage -- long term continued US monopoly control of resource governance. I think the ALAC and At-Large have a role to play in helping ICANN becoming more globally accountable. The AoC was merely a first step, and even that is badly flawed in its execution. The R3 white paper, which I helped author together with former GAC, ccNSO and ICANN Board members, helps chart out the issues and suggest possible remedies. This paper has already been requested by many GAC and Board members as major internal overhauls are contemplated to address both changes within ICANN's community and external political pressures. - Evan