[ALAC] Fwd: GAC Communique Brussels Intersessional

JJS jjs.global at gmail.com
Sat Mar 5 00:57:05 UTC 2011


*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
>


More information about the ALAC mailing list