Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 29 Aug 2014 17:20:16 -0400 |
Content-Type: | multipart/alternative |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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
|
|
|