The best way to defang multi-lateralism or intergovernmentalism within ICANN is to have a government stakeholders group, but make it open to any and all government agencies and departments. Move away from the pretense that each national government is a monolith and has one position; make all of them reach consensus as agencies, so that the Data Protection Authorities would be of equal status with the Foreign Ministry, Law Enforcement agencies, etc.



> -----Original Message-----

> 

> > Or, are we now considering governments "stakeholders" too?  If so, why

> > not just make GAC a garden-variety SG in GNSO?  The "GSG" --

> > Government Stakeholder Group?

> 

> I have a personal view on this, but to my knowledge, this isn’t actually

> codified anywhere that I can tell. Seems to me that although folks from the

> GAC and ALAC (for example) should have some sort of say on gTLD policy,

> only those directly affected by those policies belong in the GNSO. So we

> have gTLD registries and registrars in the GNSO, as well as gTLD commercial

> and noncommercial registrants (was never quite sure how the ISPs fit into

> this, so my reasoning may be flawed).

> 

> Although GAC and ALAC provide Advice (capital A) to the ICANN board on

> multiple issues including gTLD policies, the GNSO is responsible for the

> development of policy Recommendations (capital R). Both the Advice and

> Recommendations are mandated to the different groups by the ICANN

> bylaws.

> 

> Of course, the GNSO process that results in these recommendations is open

> to participation regardless of whether or not a person has any affiliation to an

> ICANN SO/AC at all. However, the process is still managed by the GNSO’s

> stakeholders, represented by the GNSO Council.

> 

> My 2 cents.

> 

> Thanks.

> 

> Amr