[Internal-cg] Important: GAC Participation in ICG
Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca
Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca
Tue Aug 19 20:18:20 UTC 2014
I saw your earlier note and appreciate the clarification about the nature of your concern. The letter is intended to confirm an understanding that the work to develop the proposal will occur in the community. In terms of the domain names piece, the cross-community working group on the IANA stewardship transition (initiated by some of the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees at ICANN), seems like a good avenue for the GAC to provide inputs and contribute to the community effort.
Generally speaking, further outreach efforts are needed to explain the role of Coordination Group and the role of the "operational communities" in the development of the proposal. I will do my utmost to assist the GAC in this and am confident that ICG GAC colleagues will also do their part. The IGF would be a good starting point for such outreach. Guiding the broader community about when and how to provide inputs throughout the process will be necessary - and further thinking about how to ensure inclusivity is probably warranted - especially if you would like to minimize the late-stage interventions that you describe.
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
Sent: August-19-14 12:38 PM
To: Dryden, Heather: SPS
Subject: Important: GAC Participation in ICG
In this letter, I find myself unable to decode the meaning of this passage, and am asking Heather and/or other GAC members to clarify:
"Your proposal that governments should also contribute as appropriate at the operational community working level is helpful and has been conveyed to the GAC. At this stage it would appear that the GAC and individual governments and inter-governmental organisations can best contribute at this level through the community process for domain name issues."
In this statement, does "this level" mean the ICG level? Or does the statement that "governments and inter-governmental organisations can best contribute at this level through the community process for domain name issues" mean that GAC is agreeing with our suggestion that they contribute to the the operational community working level? I can't tell for sure from this statement, but I fear it is the former.
If so, are GAC members are telling us that they are unable or unwilling to participate in the actual proposal development process in the operational communities? If so, do they fully understand that the substantive proposals will actually come from that lower level, not from the ICG, and that neither GACs nor governments as actors will be able to second-guess, veto or otherwise modify or intervene substantively in the incoming proposals from the ICG?
Milton L Mueller
Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 4:41 AM
To: Alissa Cooper
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: GAC Participation in ICG
FWIW, I created a folder in Dropbox named "communication" where I saved this letter.
On 19 aug 2014, at 05:18, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
On 8/18/14, 7:33 PM, "Tom Dale" <tom at acig.com.au> wrote:
On behalf of the GAC Chair, please find attached a reply to the ICG's correspondence of 18 July 2014.
ACIG GAC Secretariat
ACIG - Australian Continuous Improvement Group
evaluate :: improve :: innovate
Cell: + 61 418 207 376
tom at acig.com.au <mailto:michelle at acig.com.au>
ACIG is an independent consulting firm engaged to provide secretariat support to ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee.
<GAC ICG ReplyFINAL.docx>_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg