Hi, I wasn't in ICANN at the beginning, But when I started in 2005 there was a GAC Liaison in the GNSO who actually participated from time to time. Those who wee around n the days of DNSO and names council can probably give an indication on whether there was participation/lision way back then. As for politics entering the process too soon: from the time the Issues report is published, politics is in the process. avri On 22 Jan 2013, at 14:29, Dan Krimm wrote: > Thanks Avri for remembering my prior questions. There is a certain poetic > resonance to the idea of "accountable and transparent Accountability and > Transparency Reviews." :-) > > > As for the GAC role, can the more veteran members here review for us what > the GAC was supposed to accomplish when it was first incorporated into > ICANN's policy-making structure? > > My gut sense is that it was simply a way to allow governments to weigh in > on GNSO policy sort of as a last step before Board consideration -- > perhaps with enough weight that in serious cases policy could be thrown > back to GNSO for reconsideration? But was the idea to try to hold off GAC > (i.e., politics) to a large extent and first try to let the consensus > process work its way through? > > Of course, there is a lot of implicit politics in the consensus process, > and so it's probably not accurate to see the consensus process as a pure > rational dynamic devoid of power (i.e., political) considerations. > > Acknowledging the politics inherent in the current (and perhaps any) > implementation of the consensus process, the devil's advocate suggests > that GAC might as well get involved earlier. On the other hand, even if > purity is not an option, at least we might push back as much as possible > against politics entering the policy process too soon. > > What I'd like to see is a more detailed discussion of this in the context > of actual ICANN policy structures. I haven't been directly enough > involved recently to evaluate how things actually work in practice. > > Dan >