Are there not two issues at play here? The one is how CAG
reaches a decision to forward advice to the Board, and the other
is the terms
under which the Board decides to accept or reject GAC advice. The
core questions
should be: What are the shortcomings of the status quo? What gets
improved with
the proposed changes? What are the downside risks from the
proposed changes?
Thus far the discussion seems to be focused on whether the
downside risks are large or small. What are the gains over the
status quo that
would make it worth supporting changes that increase the downside
risks, be
they small or large?
Sam L.
On 08/09/2014 11:22 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
-----Original Message-----
I can't see why govt would do this. Think about the current vin/wine
impasse, or discussions GAC's had about any number of new TLDs. Simple
majority or even super would reduce their individual influence. No?
Adam
It drepends on the political situation. A motivated, disciplined faction of governments could rationally calculate that
a) we have a majority of votes
b) we are likely to retain a majority for some time
c) we share common interests (or enemies) across a number of IG issues
...and conclude, let's make this thing run on majority of govts, and we will have control of it.
This kind of thing does happen in the UNGA, does it not? I am not saying this is imminent in the GAC/IG world, but it does not seem entirely implausible.
Milton L Mueller
Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
--
------------------------------------------------
"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
email: [log in to unmask] Skype: slanfranco
blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852