On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Joe Sims wrote:
> 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.
1) Demonstrate consensus. Please. Quantify it. Be very precise and
specific.
We are all aware that this is the buzzword that Olgivey is coaching you
folks to say whenever possible, but do you actually have any meaningful
ability to do anything other than mouth the word?
2) If the GAC is afforded a special place in the ICANN infrastructure as
it has been, then it should bear similar responsibilites as any
other constituency, namely to be open? In refusing to consider the
application of the IDNO, Esther question whether they were truly
representative of individuals. Why not apply the same litmus test
to the handful of mid-level bureaucrats that constitute the GAC? Are
you certain that there are enough governments present to be
truly representative of the governments of the world?
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell
"This is our time. It will not come again."
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
