___________________________________________________________________________
____
This message is intended for the individual or entity named above. If you
are not the intended
recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to
others; also please
notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from
your system. Thank you.
___________________________________________________________________________
____
Mark, you missed my point. ALL GAC advice is advisory; none is mandatory.
The ICANN Board is free to give it whatever weight it (the Board) feels it
deserves. I note again that any national government is free to participate
in the GAC; if they choose not to, that is their choice, not ICANN's or the
GAC's.
(Embedded
image moved Mark R Measday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
to file: 08/31/99 11:46 AM
pic07642.pcx)
Extension:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: Joe_Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (bcc: Joe Sims/JonesDay)
Subject: Re: [IFWP] GAC: mandatory or advisory advice?
Joe,
I think the majority of participants on this list would have no respect
for Mr Rutkowski were he not
known to be acting intelligently as devil's advocate.
Whether ICANN is or will be formally or informally required to follow
GAC advice, I assume is a matter
for private consultation between those concerned. The question as to
whether GAC currently constitutes
a sufficiently weighty body of governments for ICANN to take it without
consulting those unrepresented
is perhaps more interesting.
I would similarly assume that it would be in ICANN's interest to request
GAC to provide some substantiation of its advice in terms of voting and
appropriate quorums for those votes. Were ICANN to request that GAC then
divide its advice into mandatory and advisory, it would probably ensure
an appropriately free hand.
I am also sure that Mr Rutkowski knows that this entire experiment takes
place in the free space
allowed by liberal government. The question is whether their positive
attitude is encouraged by
agreement or opposition. There may be different cultural models for
maintenance of that free space.
That's probably the trap.
MM
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.
> 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. 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.
>
>
> (Embedded
> image moved Mark Measday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> to file: 08/24/99 08:16 PM
> pic03501.pcx)
>
>
> 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: PCX Image Document
(application/x-unknown-content-type-PCXImage.Document)
> Encoding: base64
pic07642.pcx
