Nothing too startling or new but interesting in terms of how Heather describes what the GAC intended:

http://www.icann.org/en/news/press/kits/video-gac-advice-10may13-en.htm

 

I think there is something very startling (albeit not quite new) in Heather's statement.

She was asked what if, based on community comment and the board's own judgment, the board did not take GAC advice.

She replied: If you don't follow our advice it will raise questions about the value of participating in the GAC. Governments will pull out.

In other words, she is issuing a threat: follow the advice not because it's helpful or right, but because governments will try to destroy you otherwise. The difference between the GAC and the rest of us seems to be that governments are demanding a special status that should give them the final word. That their policy advice, no matter how late, how badly thought out, no matter how few people express support for it, should be decisive, simply because they are governments.

I really want someone to tell me how ICANN is different form ITU or any other intergovernmental organization in this respect. Oh, I just thought of how it is different. It is much, much worse than control by an intergovernmental organization, because in a formal international treaty process the states must follow their own national laws and constitutions, and their actions must be ratified by legislatures, and could be subject to constitutional checks.

 

Milton L. Mueller

Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies

Internet Governance Project

http://blog.internetgovernance.org