___________________________________________________________________________
____
This message is intended for the individual or entity named above. If you
are not the intended
recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to
others; also please
notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from
your system. Thank you.
___________________________________________________________________________
____
Mark, please do not fall into the trap of thinking that what Tony says is
accurate. The post you responded to is a perfect example: his statement
about the purpose of GAC has no basis other than his keyboard, since the
bylaws make no mention at all of GAC having anything at all to do with
ICANN's "legal obligations", and they are perfectly clear that ICANN is not
required to follow any GAC advice. Now, it is theoretically possible that
Tony may believe something to the contrary, but there is absolutely no
support in the ICANN structure or bylaws for his view.
On your question, since any national government can join GAC by simply
saying so, the GAC is by definition those governments that care enough
about these issues to participate in it. Any recommendations they make to
ICANN's board will certainly be listened to, just like any recommendations
made by anyone else, but they have no automatic or official effect; they
are simply recommendations to the board. Why it is that the notion that
ICANN should not try to involve interested governments in its processes, so
that they feel invested in and (hopefully) protective of ICANN and its
consensus-building efforts, is somehow threatening to anyone is beyond me.
We can't wish them away, and since they are governments, they have the
power to pass laws that could be inconsistent with the private-sector,
consensus-building approach of ICANN. Under those circumstances, I would
think that the best way to minimize the risk that governments might act
inconsistently with ICANN is to make sure they are fully involved in and
knowledgable about ICANN, and have a way to make any concerns known within
the ICANN structure.
(Embedded
image moved Mark Measday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
to file: 08/24/99 08:16 PM
pic03501.pcx)
Extension:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bcc: Joe Sims/JonesDay)
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Latest on the Australian censorship
Tony:
If NSI can use its business model to build the same value for others as
it has done for itself, why the necessary opposition to GAC? They'd do
better to cooperate when the admission policy is sorted out. However,
your point that the laisser-faire governments who by their absence
outnumber those present could probably argue that the GAC has not a
sufficient quorum to make decisions. You would think they would want to
include people and make it very boring to gain total legitimacy, perhaps
some kind of equivalence with the coverage of the ccTLDs. What percentage
of governments need representation for their decisions to have effect
that GAC's recommendations be forwarded to ICANN as constituted by a
consensus of approriate sovereign opinion? Maybe it's in the bylaws?
A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> The more interesting issue and question is whether Twomey
> will act as a global cats paw for the sponsoring minister
> behind all this - who is also Twomey's mentor and sponsor.
>
> The GAC's purpose is to make findings on the legal obligations
> of ICANN - which is effectively obligated to honor those findings.
> One wonders how long it will take GAC to recommend that all DNS
> registrants be subject to a requirement to honor a law such
> as the Aussie's have adopted as condition of registering a
> domain name. Since the GAC's membership is drawn from the
> more rigid, controlling ministries and agencies in every country,
> they can do a lot in their secret meetings, and just promulgate
> it.
>
> --tony
pic03501.pcx
