[At-Large] Fwd: [governance] EC recommends a "G12" for IG

[Adam Peake]

I pretty much agree with Patrik - also, GAC has 
an established role in ICANN policy development. 
Any oversight body should be external to ICANN 
and the GAC is not, this new G12 would be (how 
members are selected... this could be fun to 
watch!)

I still think there's confusion over the various 
contracts between the US govt and 
ICANN/IANA/Verisign. Reding seems to be asking 
the Obama administration to end all. But the JPA 
is only a small part.

Becky Burr and Marilyn Cade's paper about the 
Internet¹s authoritative root 
<http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/burr-cade.pdf> 
also worth considering.

Adam


>On Tue, 5 May 2009 18:07:16 +1200 (MAGST), Franck Martin
><franck.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  And what is wrong with the GAC?
>
>>From my personal perspective, the GAC lacks authority and, in a certain
>way, credibility. Depending how important ICANN is considered under the
>local political context, some governments will send senior officials. Some
>will send junior officials. Some come from the telecoms ministry, some from
>the economy ministry or foreign affairs, some from the telecom regulation
>authority. Some have a well defined political agenda, others only a tourism
>agenda.
>
>IMHO, the GAC crowd is too large and heterogeneous to come up with a
>clearly defined policy. At one stage, we need limited number of serious
>high level diplomats. Now, how they are chosen is a different matter. And a
>very scary one I do not wish to solve.
>
>Patrick
>--
>Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu
>Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/patrickvw
>Identica: http://identi.ca/patrickv
>
>_______________________________________________
>At-Large mailing list
>At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org