[NCSG-Discuss] AW: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Questions & Concerns for our Representatives on the Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT2)

[Rafik Dammak]

thanks Wolfgang for explaining this historical context, I am wondering why
the GAC rep wanted to consult with GAC, I don't want really to think that
they were thinking endorse or not candidates for leader position in ICANN
and that doesn't to have anything with transparency.

Rafik


2013/1/25 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

> Years ago we had a problem with the GAC representative in the NomCom. The
> NomCom works under confidential rules (to protect the candidates). The
> problem was that the GAC liaison said that he can not speak on behalf of
> the GAC (as a whole) in the NomCom discussion without consulting the other
> GAC members (and then breaching the rule of confidentiality). The final
> decisions was (by the GAC) to have an emtpy GAC seat in the NomCom (up to
> now). ;.)))
>
> w
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von Brenden Kuerbis
> Gesendet: Do 24.01.2013 16:58
> An: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Questions & Concerns for our
> Representatives on the Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT2)
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>         Part of the problem is structural, in that GAC participants are
> not "free agents" who can make binding commitments in email list-based
> working groups - they are merely agents of a hierarchical principal and
> must go back up the chain of command to get anything approved. Governments
> mode of operation is literally incompatible with the bottom up process.
> Literally.
>
>
> I think it's important to note that this incompatibility with "bottom-up"
> Internet governance seems to be apparent only when looking at the GAC, not
> governments in general.  Case in point, some USG agencies have been very
> successful in influencing Internet standards and policies. This is achieved
> through the act you speak of, delegation. However, these agencies are
> delegating to private organizations, and individuals affiliated with those
> organizations engage directly in Internet governance institutions. This has
> been observed in IETF, ICANN standards and policy outcomes.
>
>
>
>
>         And many of them have multiple responsibilities and are not expert
> on the policy issues.
>
>
>
> This is very true, and a key difference with the cases of delegation I
> mention above.  Something to think about - what if governments, instead of
> sending _a_ GAC rep, instead delegated responsibility to a number of
> specialists, either within an agency or to a private organization?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>         So the record belies any nadve view that earlier engagement with
> the GAC with solve any of the problems associated with its interventions.
>
>
>         > -----Original Message-----
>         >
>         > anecdotally, I beleive that people have often tried to engage
> GAC with
>         > little success.  I am not sure how true this is beyond the
> anecdotal and
>         > so would like to find out more.  How often has the GAC been
> invited and
>         > how have they responded?  I beleive it is possible we will find
> that the
>         > invitations and the modes of participation are a mis-match and
> we need
>         > to explore the issue of how the GAC can participate in the early
> stages
>         > of the process.  We have certainly seen over the years, an
> increase in
>         > the cross participation between other ACs and the SOs. We have
> even seen
>         > some GAC participation, but not at the same levels.
>         >
>         > I think it is ok to ask about my 'ideal outcomes' for ATRT2.
>  Overall I
>         > think ATRT1 gave us the impression that the AOC review process
> might be
>         > useful and might work.  I hope we come out of ATRT2 with a view
> as to
>         > how well ATRT1 really worked and come out with reviews and
>         > recommendations that represent improvement in Accountability and
>         > Transparency at ICANN.
>         >
>         > Thanks for the question.
>         >
>         > avri
>         >
>         >
>         > On 22 Jan 2013, at 12:19, Maria Farrell wrote:
>         >
>         > > Hi, Avri and Marie Laure,
>         > >
>         > > My question is about the Government Advisory Committee's
> future role.
>         > >
>         > > The GAC's report of its High Level Meeting in Toronto said it
> wanted
>         > ATRT2 to look at: "Enabling engagement of the GAC as early as
> possible,
>         > and at various levels, within the ICANN policy development
> process".
>         > >
>         > > What form do you think greater GAC engagement might take
> earlier in
>         > the process, and how would you try to ensure its engagement in
> the GNSO
>         > and at the same time protect the multi-(equal)-stakeholder
> process?
>         > >
>         > > I hope this question is within scope, i.e. that it's ok to ask
> you
>         > what your 'ideal outcomes' from the ATRT2 might be on this issue.
>         > >
>         > > Thanks and all the best, Maria
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130125/7718554a/attachment-0001.html>