Avri,<div><br><div>I was just trying to be polite. i will be as clear as I can write in English, and will just quote from the justification of my one pager, which was not meant to be personal. It goes as follows<div>:</div>
</div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><div><div><p class="Body1" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><i>In many Internet governance and
standards organizations, technical barriers are beneficial: in the IETF they
contribute to meritocratic evaluation of proposals; in technology development
processes they ensure the quality of contributions; in technical policy making
they are a reality check and ensure operational efficacy. In each of these, technical barriers
contribute to quality control. But when
engaging with public policy makers, technical barriers preclude effective
engagement and dialogue, and may foster distrust. </i></span></p></div></div></div><div><div><p class="Body1" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><i>Currently, the mechanisms for
evaluating this phenomenon as an outcome are poorly understood. An illustration is the current relationship
between the GAC, the Board, and some of its joint working groups (operating
principles, by-laws, PDP). The Board has
placed the GAC in a box and their engagement through joint WGs is confounded by
technical barriers that are not aligned with the types of outcomes policy
makers base their decisions based on.
The result is a body that has a fundamental regulatory role, but that
both denies that role in favor of a poorly articulated .... model of multi-stakeholderism and that has unintentionally
alienated those policy agents in government that could best help them develop
this role. </i></span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><div><br></div><div>based on that: yes, I would agree that based on that statemnt you can tag me into our second group if you like. No problem with your own prejudices. From that quote, I support a wider external perspective about ICANN, simply because I'm working for one Government that really tries hard to express its opinion (see ITRs),</div>
<div><br></div><div>You may want to elaborate on how we can bridge the two groups as per your clasification.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers</div><div>Carlos Raul<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2013/6/21 Avri Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avri@ella.com" target="_blank">avri@ella.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
"with all due respect"? I must be in trouble now!<br>
<br>
....<br>
<br>
I beleive all the mechanisms needed for very involved Nation State and GAC participation exist are contained in the By-Laws and PDP process as well as WG guidelines, it is just that these mechanisms are rarely if ever used.<br>
<br>
Others seem to beleive that Nation States and GAC are given no real voice in fulfilling their stakeholder mandate in a manner appropriate to their definition of their roles and responsibilities.<br>
<br>
If we assume that both are right, then what we may have is a mismatch of mechanisms and capabilities. Perhaps that is what will be discovered.<br>
<br>
What I think is critical in this, like other questions we ask, is asking the question in a non prejudicial manner.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
avri<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On 21 Jun 2013, at 08:30, Carlos Raul wrote:<br>
<br>
> With all due respect Avri, this is exactly what I consider the problem of ATRT1 and I hope we can improve it this time: Its ICANN-centric perspective.<br>
><br>
> We have a wider participation of public servants, as the still unsent letter shows, and we tend to see ICANNs legitimacy based on its ability to convince Governments, every single day, that they are doing their best in taking into account its considerations, independently if through (a definition) of GAC in the By-laws, or directly from Governments themselves or through a meta-definition of public interest.<br>
><br>
> Luckily ICANN has today a CEO that, is taking its outreach to Governments very seriously and consulting them more widely than GAC itself sometimes does (due to lack of time of course). GAC has a full paragraph dedicated in 9.1<br>
><br>
> (b) assessing the role and effectiveness of the GAC and its interaction with the Board and making recommendations for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN ofGAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS;<br>
><br>
> For that reason I support Jorgens very diplomatic language. I would be more blunt: my reading of 9.1 is that if GAC-BOARD relations are not effective, Governments should consider other channels to put their thoughts forward.<br>
><br>
> I hope you all have a nice weekend!<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez<br>
> Skype carlos.raulg<br>
> _________<br>
> Apartado 1571-1000<br>
> COSTA RICA<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@ella.com">avri@ella.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> I would be more comfortable with a more ICANN centric question, like:<br>
><br>
> - Whether the views of the GAC have been handled appropriately given their status as defined in the ICANN bylaws.<br>
><br>
><br>
> avri<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 20 Jun 2013, at 12:41, Jørgen C Abild Andersen wrote:<br>
><br>
> > Dear colleagues<br>
> ><br>
> > Proposal for a new bullit between 86 and 87 (a 86A):<br>
> ><br>
> > - whether in particular the views and advice provided by GAC has been duly taken into account given the specific tasks of national governments with respect to public policy.<br>
> ><br>
> > Best wishes<br>
> > Jørgen<br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > atrt2 mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:atrt2@icann.org">atrt2@icann.org</a><br>
> > <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> atrt2 mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:atrt2@icann.org">atrt2@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> atrt2 mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:atrt2@icann.org">atrt2@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
atrt2 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:atrt2@icann.org">atrt2@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><b><font size="4">Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez</font></b><div><font color="#000099">skype carlos.raulg</font><br><div>_________</div><div>Apartado 1571-1000</div>
<div><b>COSTA RICA</b></div><div><br></div><div>Mobile +506 6060 7176</div></div>
</div></div></div>