One of the questions to which I didn't get an answer in Chile was what
constitutes a quorum of interest sufficient for ICANN to accept GAC's
advice. If
GAC is the voice of thirty or forty governments, it is presumably not
the voice
of the other 160 plus. Is ICANN supposed to consult the others
privately?
Secondly, the governments have shown a great deal of forbearance in
allowing the
ICANN to self-constitute under the terms of the White Paper; with the
major
commercial carriers governments appear happy to allow the teleology of
interests involved
to play out. After all there are many other existing fora available to
them.
This scenario demands that those who are asking for a voice balance the
legitimate
involvement of regulators, telcos, private trademark interests with
their own
contributions. If not, back to the time-honoured structures, many of
which look
comparatively attractive .
It must come down to funding sources which are not beholden to the above
groups. There is really no point if IBM, MCI, USG, AT&T, Telefonica,
ETSI, the NICs
etc. are the major sources as ICANN becomes a trade association or an
associate UN
forum, not that those options are necessarily a bad thing, just a repeat
performance of many others. If ICANN is to demonstrate some progress as
the
experiment in governance it was supposed to be, it will have to go
further to
make those who wish to maintain a stable internet demonstrate the value
they
find in that stability.
If ICANN is the source of that stability, it is in a position to fund
itself
from those sources of offshore risk capital and putative self-assigned
nationhood
that have come into being precisely because stable international
communications
networks have allowed them to become such.
Suggestions have been made to ICANN and the major players above as to
how it
might uncontroversially do this, starting back in May when the problem
first
appeared. However it will demand some initial level of agreement to
allow it to
function.
MM
[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
>
