[council] Informal conversation

[William Drake]

Hello


On Oct 27, 2011, at 6:48 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> Good point Mary, I forgot the topic of a liaison. They say they can't do that, but actually suggest the reverse, i.e. that we send them a liaison!
> 
> An interesting suggestion…
> 
> Le 27 oct. 2011 à 16:39, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> a écrit :
> 
>> Hmm ... isn't this one very good reason why we ought to have GNSO-GAC liaisons? 
>> 
>> Also, while I understand the difficulty the GAC may have with nit having one or two people represent the GAC formally, should we consider inviting them to appoint an observer or liaison to the task force or WG that Jeff is leading?
>> 
>> Thanks for the prompt action and reporting back, Stéphane.


Sorry to have been off the grid during the meeting; luckily I had an active Temporary Alternate.  In a couple weeks I will be over some day job, health and travel humps and will have some bandwidth to allocate to Council matters.  I would certainly be interested in doing something in connection with GAC, inter alia since I'm dealing with the same government folk on related matters in other settings anyway.  Given the diversity of interests etc, I don't know if Council could comfortably settle on a single liaison.  But if some formulation is found—one from each house, from each SG, or a rotating representation—I would certainly be interested in doing this for NCSG or anyone else who'd be comfortable with it.

On a related governmental note, while several NCSG attempts to stimulate dialogue with the board on a devising a strategic community orientation toward developing country governments have gone nowhere, the issue remains rather live and relevant.  By now I imagine everyone knows that after extensive coordination with Brazil and South Africa, India has formally proposed to the UN General Assembly that it should establish a United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP).  (This would be in addition to the ITU's Dedicated Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues, which has just been elevated to full working group status.)  Comprising 50 Member States chosen on the basis of equitable geographical representation, the CIRP would meet annually for two working weeks in Geneva and be staffed by UNCTAD.  The mandate would be, inter alia, to

• Develop and establish international public policies with a view to ensuring coordination and coherence in cross-cutting Internet-related global issues;

• Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting;

• Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on Internet-related public policies;

• Address developmental issues related to the Internet;

• Promote the promotion and protection of all human rights, namely, civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, including the Right to Development;

• Undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary; and,

• Crisis management in relation to the Internet.

ICANN figures in this in more than the obvious ways.  While CIRP would be supported by the regular budget of the United Nations, a separate Fund should also be set up "drawing from the domain registration fees collected by various bodies involved in the technical functioning of the Internet, especially in terms of names and addresses."  I guess the JAS group forgot to include that bit...

It will be interesting to see whether and how these initiatives, which could attract support from numerous members of the G-77 and China, might connect with GAC discussions.

Anyway,

Bill


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20111031/e5ee7aa1/attachment.html>