Hi everybody,
I'm in complete agreement with Matt's take on things but would like to make an additional comment about the GAC and it's participation in this process.
The GAC does not have a veto. They want to, they threaten one, they do not and should not have one. The same holds true for the United States Congress, the multinational corporate community or even the N.T.I.A. All are stakeholders, part of this cooperative, somewhat messy governance model we call multi-stakeholder.
Many of the governments who have been loudest in opposition to what the CWG and CCWG have been doing are amongst the most repressive and freedom stiffing in the world. IMHO they will oppose pretty much anything the community comes up with short of handing responsibility for the naming and numbers responsibilities to themselves through the I.T.U. I'm sorry if I've begun to tune them out. I'm looking to work with entities who approach these issues with open minds and in good faith, not closed minds looking to sabotage our efforts. I should note that the later involves far more than certain members of the GAC.
My broader concern involves the way the GAC is functioning regarding the CWG and CCWG. We have had active participation by some GAC members in the CCWG that has been quite constructive and welcome. However, a few of their members have been inactive yet have been charged with reporting to the GAC on our proceedings. I am concerned that one of their two official presenters on things CCWG is a GAC member of the CCWG with an attendance record of 12%. I spoke with her this morning and she does not understand the reference model she has been charged with explaining to other GAC members. This is a concern.
Carlos, I agree with much of what you have written. I do not like PTI yet recognise that it is the best we could get out of this mess we call multi-stakeholderism. Compromise is at the heart of this process. I will be voting to approve the CWG report on Council later today. In terms of jurisdiction, I look forward to your active participation as we discuss this and action upon your concerns in CCWG work stream 2. I think there are a lot of options in this area that need to be explored. Thanks so much for raising these important issues at this critical stage of the transition process.
Kind Regards,
Ed