[ALAC] Fwd: GAC Communique Brussels Intersessional

[JJS]

*Dear Tijani,*
*
*
*thank you for your wise remarks. *
*
*
*Yes, support from other stakeholders is not and cannot be a foregone
conclusion for ALAC. And you're right to point out that for ALAC to gain
"consideration and perhaps respect", many elements will prove important (you
mention the role of a new Board director).*
*
*
*I firmly believe that now is the time for the ALAC to concentrate on a few
priorities (I've suggested that these should be centered on "the public
interest"), to formulate general policy orientations, to present these to
other ACs and SOs, and thus to strive for joint positions which, by adding
value to the multi-stakeholder process, would most certainly add credibility
to the ALAC itself. I take your point that positions are sometimes wide
apart among ACs and SOs, but that is a challenge the ALAC must take up.*
*
*
*Regards,*
*Jean-Jacques.
*
On 5 March 2011 20:20, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org> wrote:

>  You are right Jean Jacques.
>
> The only problem I see is the difficulty to get support from other SO/AC.
> From my modest experience, some of those constituencies are very very
> conservative. We now are gaining consideration and respect, but from the
> Board and the GAC only. Perhaps, we are also gaining hostility from some
> other SO/AC.
>
>
>
> But I’m optimistic, and think we should try and try again, never give up.
> Also, the performance of our Board Director will likely strengthen our
> position in the ICANN community.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>
> Executive Director
>
> *M*editerranean *F*ederation of* I*nternet *A*ssociations
>
> *Phone : *+ 216 70 825 231
>
> *Mobile : *+ 216 98 330 114
>
> *Fax     :* + 216 70 825 231
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:
> alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de JJS
> Envoyé : samedi 5 mars 2011 01:57
> À : Evan Leibovitch
> Cc : ALAC Working List
> Objet : Re: [ALAC] Fwd: GAC Communique Brussels Intersessional
>
>
>
> *The GAC communiqué from Brussels, and Evan's interesting remarks, prompt
> me
>
> to make these comments:*
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *- Inequality between the GAC and other ACs or SOs is a reality, whether or
>
> not we consider this is justified. Sovereign states can apply national law,
>
> and are (usually) bound by international law. ICANN's other stakeholders
>
> have a vague moral right to represent segments of the community, the only
>
> reference being the ICANN By-laws, which have no international standing,
> and
>
> are legally binding only in the USA.*
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *- This discrepancy is further accentuated by the AoC. We cannot escape
> this
>
> fact. So the question is: apart from the GAC, can other stakeholders
> achieve
>
> a better balance, and how can they do that? I think there's only one way,
>
> which is to have cross-constituency agreement on major issues, which so far
>
> has proven difficult.*
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *- One area where the ALAC could take a leadership role and strive to gain
>
> other stakeholders to its cause, is the general area of "the public
>
> interest". Example: in the DAG, some elements may be defensible from an
>
> industry point of view, but possibly detrimental to the public interest
>
> (privacy, consumer protection, human and civic rights). If we detect a
>
> dividing line between, say, the GAC and other stakeholders, for instance
>
> regarding fundamental human rights (e.g. religious persuasions, atheism or
>
> other philosophical positions, sexual preference, etc), then we should
>
> strive to define a broad platform and present it to other stakeholders,
>
> seeking their support. Ideally, this could then become a "ICANN minus GAC"
>
> position, which would carry more weight than some ALAC-only statement.*
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *Regards,*
>
> *Jean-Jacques.*
>
>
>
> On 4 March 2011 22:48, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The two components of the message that stuck out to me:
>
> >
>
> > - The emphasis for more *bilateral* discussions. There are more
>
> > stakeholders
>
> > than just GAC and the ICANN Board. I welcome the opportunity to more
> deeply
>
> > involve the GAC in ICANN processes, but there must be more than
> lip-service
>
> > paid to the multi-stakeholder model going forward. As we saw from its
>
> > near-obsession with trademark issues, in some ways even the GAC can be
>
> > gamed.
>
> >
>
> > - "*The GAC is committed to take whatever time is required to achieving
>
> > these essential public policy objectives** -- Saved for the second-last
>
> > sentence of the statement, this rightfully holds ICANN accountable for
> its
>
> > lack of sufficiently inclusive community engagement in early gTLD policy
>
> > development, and the deliberate shunning of community advice at many
>
> > stages.
>
> > It should send a shiver down the spine of most GNSO members, to whom the
>
> > word "delay" is now officially an obscenity.
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
>
> > Em: evan at telly dot org
>
> > Sk: evanleibovitch
>
> > Tw: el56
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > ALAC mailing list
>
> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> >
>
> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>
> > ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> ALAC mailing list
>
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
>
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>
> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
>