Re: [council] Informal conversation

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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