Joe and all,
Joe, I think you are misconstruing Tony's remarks/comments incorrectly.
I did not see any mention of Tony stating that the ICANN is absolutely
obligated to accept the legal obligations of the GAC findings as or once
reported to the Board, but rather that the Board is "Effectively Obligated"
to do so. This seems like a reasonable statement to me. It does not
indicate that the ICANN Board is "Absolutely Obligated", only effectively
so. Hence I would have to say here that you are nit picking...
Joe Sims wrote:
> Mark, please do not fall into the trap of thinking that what Tony says is
> accurate. The post you responded to is a perfect example: his statement
> about the purpose of GAC has no basis other than his keyboard, since the
> bylaws make no mention at all of GAC having anything at all to do with
> ICANN's "legal obligations", and they are perfectly clear that ICANN is not
> required to follow any GAC advice. Now, it is theoretically possible that
> Tony may believe something to the contrary, but there is absolutely no
> support in the ICANN structure or bylaws for his view.
>
> On your question, since any national government can join GAC by simply
> saying so, the GAC is by definition those governments that care enough
> about these issues to participate in it. Any recommendations they make to
> ICANN's board will certainly be listened to, just like any recommendations
> made by anyone else, but they have no automatic or official effect; they
> are simply recommendations to the board. Why it is that the notion that
> ICANN should not try to involve interested governments in its processes, so
> that they feel invested in and (hopefully) protective of ICANN and its
> consensus-building efforts, is somehow threatening to anyone is beyond me.
Many of the edicts that the ICANN (Initial?) Interim board has already made
are indeed threatening, and it has been made painfully clear on several occasions
as to why these "Edicts" are so. I am sure that you are aware of this fact.
That the ICANN (Initial?) Interim board continues to not understand this is
beyond me and many governments.
>
> We can't wish them away, and since they are governments, they have the
> power to pass laws that could be inconsistent with the private-sector,
> consensus-building approach of ICANN.
In interesting choice of words here Joe, but unfortunate I don't find them
to be consistent with the current reality.
> Under those circumstances, I would
> think that the best way to minimize the risk that governments might act
> inconsistently with ICANN is to make sure they are fully involved in and
> knowledgable about ICANN, and have a way to make any concerns known within
> the ICANN structure.
Making concerns known within the ICANN structure is nearly impossible
as that structure is flawed as has been pointed out in EU on several
occasions as I know you are very well aware of. Continuing to be
befuddled by this in rhetoric here, does nothing to change that fact.
>
>
>
> (Extension:
>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bcc: Joe Sims/JonesDay)
> Subject: Re: [IFWP] Latest on the Australian censorship
>
> Tony:
>
> If NSI can use its business model to build the same value for others as
> it has done for itself, why the necessary opposition to GAC? They'd do
> better to cooperate when the admission policy is sorted out. However,
> your point that the laisser-faire governments who by their absence
> outnumber those present could probably argue that the GAC has not a
> sufficient quorum to make decisions. You would think they would want to
> include people and make it very boring to gain total legitimacy, perhaps
> some kind of equivalence with the coverage of the ccTLDs. What percentage
> of governments need representation for their decisions to have effect
> that GAC's recommendations be forwarded to ICANN as constituted by a
> consensus of approriate sovereign opinion? Maybe it's in the bylaws?
>
> A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> >
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > The more interesting issue and question is whether Twomey
> > will act as a global cats paw for the sponsoring minister
> > behind all this - who is also Twomey's mentor and sponsor.
> >
> > The GAC's purpose is to make findings on the legal obligations
> > of ICANN - which is effectively obligated to honor those findings.
> > One wonders how long it will take GAC to recommend that all DNS
> > registrants be subject to a requirement to honor a law such
> > as the Aussie's have adopted as condition of registering a
> > domain name. Since the GAC's membership is drawn from the
> > more rigid, controlling ministries and agencies in every country,
> > they can do a lot in their secret meetings, and just promulgate
> > it.
> >
> > --tony
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Name: pic03501.pcx
> pic03501.pcx Type: Paint Shop Pro Image
>(application/x-unknown-content-type-PaintShopPro)
> Encoding: base64
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
