Tony wrote,
> The GAC is an autonomous intergovernmental body
> and can do whatever it wishes. The ICANN Board is obliged
> to confer with the GAC prior to taking any significant
> decisions, and the conversely the GAC can otherwise
> compel the Board to consider any matter the GAC cares to
> raise.
and Craig responded,
> The GAC folks (the majority of whom I agree probably don't have a
> clue) are just looking out for the public interest, which is, I'd
> venture to claim, relevant here.
>
Of Tony's three independent assertions, I agree with #1 and #2.
The point of interest is #3, as Article VII states only that
"Committees are of two kinds: those having legal authority to act
for the Corporation, known as Committees of the Board, and those
that do not have that authority, known as Advisory Committees.
Secion 3(a) states, "The Governmental Advisory Committee should
consider and provide advice on the activities of the Corporation as
they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where
there may be an interaction between the Corporation's policies and
various laws, and international agreements. The Board will notify
the chairman of the Governmental Advisory Committee of any
proposal for which it seeks comments under Article III, Section 3(b)
and will consider any response to that notification prior to taking
action."
That is, the GAC is an _advisory committee, created to consider
the 'concerns of governments' and their 'interaction' with ICANN
policy, and as such, I agree that someone to look after such
matters is entirely appropriate.
But I fail to see that the agenda items I cited are the concerns of
government, and even if they were, that they would interact with an
organization which is on record as *not adopting the distinction of
open versus closed TLDs.
Did the Board "notify the chairman of the
Governmental Advisory Committee of any proposal [on domains
containing restrictions or conditions on registration that serve to
ensure certainty with respect to the application and enforcement of
laws] under Article III, Section 3(b)" or did it not? What is that
proposal? Does it further pertain to "principles for the delegation of
management for ccTLDs" -- that is, in one possible view, to the
compelling of one or another ccTLD to adopt certain policies; for
instance, a UDR?
ICANN is required to make its board meetings public; I dont believe
the committees are under the same obligation. If the GAC is doing
ICANNs business, thats one thing; if it is doing Governments'
business, thats something else, and I think we would be wise to
know about it -- before 24 Aug. (Do any of the other Meetings run
from 9 to 6:30??)
Sour cynicism is well and good, but you may realize later that you
have only yourself to blame for not keeping ICANNs feet to its own
fire, regardless whose heels are the roundest.
kerry
