The following email was sent to you misleadingly carrying the title used by the previous correspondent. Apologies. One of the questions to which I didn't get an answer in Chile was what constitutes a quorum of interest sufficient for ICANN to accept GAC's advice. If GAC is the voice of thirty or forty governments, it is presumably not the voice of the other 160 plus. Is ICANN supposed to consult the others privately? Secondly, the governments have shown a great deal of forbearance in allowing the ICANN to self-constitute under the terms of the White Paper; with the major commercial carriers governments appear happy to allow the teleology of interests involved to play out. After all there are many other existing fora available to them. This scenario demands that those who are asking for a voice balance the legitimate involvement of regulators, telcos, private trademark interests with their own contributions. If not, back to the time-honoured structures, many of which look comparatively attractive . It must come down to funding sources which are not beholden to the above groups. There is really no point if IBM, MCI, USG, AT&T, Telefonica, ETSI, the NICs etc. are the major sources as ICANN becomes a trade association or an associate UN forum, not that those options are necessarily a bad thing, just a repeat performance of many others. If ICANN is to demonstrate some progress as the experiment in governance it was supposed to be, it will have to go further to make those who wish to maintain a stable internet demonstrate the value they find in that stability. If ICANN is the source of that stability, it is in a position to fund itself from those sources of offshore risk capital and putative self-assigned nationhood etc. which have come into being precisely because stable international communications networks have allowed them to become such. Suggestions have been made to ICANN and the major players above as to how it might uncontroversially do this, starting back in May when the problem first appeared. However it will demand some initial level of agreement to allow it to function. MM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Tony Rutkowski wrote: > > Joe Sims wrote: >
