On 29 Aug 2014, at 11:20 pm, Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I would like to pick up on a thread (which I fully agree with) present in David Cake’s posting. He writes:

The GAC-GNSO Coordination Group has been trying hard to demonstrate to the GAC the many ways they can be a part of the GNSO policy development process…. There is absolutely no guarantee that anyone outside the GAC will have any influence at all - sure, a major policy decision will be discussed for some time, and you might be able to informally lobby your GAC rep. But there is no guarantee at all - GAC advice can be proposed virtually direct from the floor, and be in the GAC communique shortly afterward, with no opportunity for anyone outside the GAC to even know what it is.

GAC representatives are representatives of their governments, and their governments are supposed to be representative of the will of the people as expressed by the people, which is not the case in non-democratic governments. There are however lots of democratic governments and one of the ICANN multistakeholder efforts should be to press governments to carry on a more inclusive domestic stakeholder dialogue within their own countries, a dialogue that would better inform individual GAC member positions, and increase transparency and accountability between constituencies at the national level.

Least this be thought of as an impertinent suggestion, this can be promoted at the ICANN level on the grounds that national inclusive dialogue is a win-win: at the national level informing national stakeholders for better national Internet policy; and globally producing better policy deliberations among a better informed GAC, GNSO and others within ICANN.

As civil society works to increase the awareness, knowledge, engagement and accountability of the Internet’s civil society stakeholders, it is not unreasonable to suggest to GAC that it should do the same. In the absence of such a process there are reasons to worry about Board voting formulas that allow arbitrary and ill-advised GAC proposals being fast tracked with no deliberation, and no effective way to fight ill-considered policy decisions.

Sam L

	I agree, Sam, but not all governments do. I've had GAC members express to me the opinion that they had no need to discuss national positions with other stakeholders at a domestic level, because other national stakeholders could express their opinions within the ICANN process. I think this is a terrible position personally, and I am alarmed that GAC reps often hold positions, even at the specific government level, that are contrary to national level policy.
	There isn't, however, much we can do as civil society, other than advocate for national level policy discussions as a best practice. The ability of GAC members to push positions contrary to national policy/law is, however, another reason to give less weight to the GACs case for more weight for their advice.
	And note that some GAC members are not nations at all. The poorly thought out ICRC related advice I was railing about originated with a small group of lobbyists for an IGO responsible to no government or democratic process.
	Regards

		David