Mr. Gaetano and Everyone,
Your "Labeling" of other organizations as "troglodytes of the
telecommunications field" it a bit extreme. Such belief's or
"Labels" should be kept to oneself if you indeed harbor
such feelings. Other governments have different opinions
that may differ slightly or drastically from what the GAC
espouses. It would seem that the extreme elements are
those elements of the ITU that are represented on the
GAC. The ITU's behavior as has been documented
over a period of several years would serve as evidence
in this regard. However their input is still needed.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Tony Rutkowski wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> The GAC was not constituted by random self-organization. With only
> a couple of exceptions, the ITU's member list became the basis for
> GAC membership. These are typically the PTT and PTO regulatory
> ministries in each country - who typically have strong hostile interests
> and preconceived views about the Internet and the role of government.
> These are the troglodytes of the telecommunications field.
>
>
>
> Even supposing that the initial list was biased at the certain point in time
> (which I disagree, but is not the point under discussion), it seems to me
> that if a Government cares there's nothing that prevents it to change the
> contact person.
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> You comments ignore the last 20 years of telecommunications
> and information policy and law, as well as the actual experiences
> in dealing with these players. It also ignores the tenets of the
> White Paper which calls for the the involvement of government staff
> as peer users in the various activities of NewCo, not as a collective
> independent intergovernmental body meeting in secret among themselves
> to promulgate findings and agreements.
>
>
>
> I confess I don't understand the first part of your comment.
> As for the second part, you seem to assume that the USG is either against
> the GAC, or has changed its mind about the White Paper.
>
> Last comment, I see that you like the expression "meeting in secret", which,
> to my limited knowledge of the English language, is a different thing than
> "meeting behind closed doors". Whereas the first is more colorful and
> evocates sects and illegal activities, the second one is more appropriate
> for the case under discussion.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> There is nothing about the coordination of the names and numbers
> for private shared networks and network resources that should give
> rise to the need for a permanent intergovernmental body.
>
>
> I understand your position, against any type of intergovernmental and/or
> standardization body - I guess it is inconsciously connected with the metric
> system having been chosen instead of the foot-and-inch ;>).
>
> It just happens that Governments (on the average) have a different approach,
> and until you cannot find a way to ignore the Governments will, we have to
> live with that.
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
Respectfully,
--
Brian C. Hollingsworth
Sr. Legal Advisor, International House of Justice Internet
Communications Affairs and Policy
Advisory council for Public Affairs and Internet Policy, European
Union
