Milton/all
I agree with much, and maybe all, that you say. But I am curious as
to why you're as concerned as you are about the GACs's 'advisory power'
when the Bylaws now state (a) that the Board's powers are limited to
implementing consensus policies, and (b) that the Board has no power to
act outside of that limitation, and (c) the IRP is empowered to declare
Board actions outside of these limits invalid. [I don't mean this
as a rhetorical question, btw ] It does seem to me that if we
really believed that the limitations were going to be adhered to, we'd be
less concerned about preferential GAC access, insofar as any action the
Board took because the GAC asked for it or demanded it could be
challenged (and presumably successfully) on the grounds that it was a
violation of the consensus requirement.
So it makes me think that you must be concerned that (a), (b), and/or (c)
above are not actually going to get the job done - that they're not going
to work. I'm curious as to whether that's correct, and, if it is,
how we might go about solving that problem (independent of the GAC
problem you talk about here)
David
At 03:10 PM 8/30/2015, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
I’ve been reviewing the
transcripts of the ICANN 53 (Buenos Aires) meeting in an attempt to
understand better the way the GAC will handle the dilemma it has been put
into by the community empowerment mechanism. You can see the preliminary
results of my ruminations here:
http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/08/29/gac-as-first-among-equals-the-danger-in-the-accountability-plan/
So much for “equal footing.” The GAC repeatedly refers to itself as
“first among equals” and they revel in this privileged status.
But these facts need to be reflected in our comments on the CCWG
proposal. Ironically, these readings, when considered in connection with
an assessment of the impact of GAC “advice” on ICANN’s policy process,
might change my prior opposition to including governments in the
community mechanism. If we give GAC equal status in the community
mechanism and TAKE AWAY their special advice status, we are closer to
“equal footing” than we are now. Indeed, it may be that the privileged
advisory power is more dangerous and distortive of ‘equal footing’ than
their participation in the community mechanism would be. While many of us
assume that GAC’s “Advisory” status limits its power, in fact its
privileged channel to the board elevates governments above all other
stakeholders in the policy making process. If one reviews the history of
the new TLD program, for example, one can see how GAC advice was
repeatedly used to delay, hijack and change the policy developed by the
GNSO. So maybe Heritage Foundation was right: force them to choose
between privileged advice or participation in the community mechanism.
Or, maybe we should actually PREFER their inclusion in the community
mechanism to continued special status of advice.
Two things to avoid like the plague:
1) Giving GAC BOTH privileged advisory
status AND participation in the community mechanism
2) Giving GAC a similar privileged advisory
status over the community mechanism (e.g., GAC would not participate
directly but would “advise” the empowered community, which would
translate into an effective veto, delay or dilution of the community’s
powers).
Well, it seems unlikely that the special advisory power would be taken
away. So if we don’t oppose their inclusion in the community mechanism,
there is a risk that they will get both. Indeed, it seems highly likely
to me that many members of GAC will respond to the CCWG dilemma by
demanding option 1) or 2). Still not sure how to play this.
Your thoughts?
Dr. Milton L. Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology
*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
book (Jefferson's Moose)
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
music
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc.
http://www.davidpost.com
*******************************