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

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

 "Patrick Vande Walle" <patrick at vande-walle.eu> writes:

> 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.

Your observations about GAC are right on target, and I've heard 
exactly the same thing from two different GAC members in the past 
month. Needless to say, they were in the "higher-level" diplomat 
status.

How about an evolution of GAC, with a GAC12 council?

I have serious reservations wrt a G12 that's completely independent of 
GAC for the following reasons:

- how the 12 countries are selected has not been revealed
- will G12 have a veto power over ICANN's decisions? If so, what's the 
point of ICANN?
- will G12 have revolving membership, or will the same 12 countries be 
chairing ad-infinitum? This makes it completely unrepresentative of 
the Internet
- rather than making it inclusive, the G12 makes it exclusive. 
Furthermore, I also think that in its proposed form, it is a group 
which becomes candidate for capture
- what is the accountability of this G12 group?

At least, GAC has to answer to clear accountability procedures, and 
one is allowed to criticise it in truly democratic manner. G12 
criticism is likely to be met with a water cannon. :-)

Kind regards,

Olivier

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html