And ICANN is a "stakeholder without standing" in the ITU. As Internet 
governance comes of age it will transpire in many locations and at many 
levels.
Just like stakeholders within ICANN, ICANN will have to figure out how 
to be everywhere almost all the time to deal with policy issues that 
impinge on its remit.

Sam L.

On 2016-08-07 8:47 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> But I guess GAC has less well-defined institutional dynamics than ITU.  Is that
>> the difference you're getting at? -- I'm no expert on ITU either...)
>>
>> 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?
> Bingo. That's what is happening.
>
>> I may not be expert in the implications of the term of art "multilateral"
>> but I honestly don't see much difference in ICANN being whip-tailed by GAC or
>> ITU if the dynamic is comparable.  Can you elaborate on this distinction?
> The difference is that an ICANN completely dominated by governments is worse than the ITU because ICANN has global hierarchical power over the DNS, whereas as a treaty-based organization the ITU cannot make any sovereign member do something it doesn't want to do. When ICANN imposes rules on how DNS works however, it has global effect.
>

-- 

*--------------------------------------------*
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
----------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
YorkU email: [log in to unmask]   Skype: slanfranco
blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852