<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi<br><div>
</div>
<br><div><div>On Jun 3, 2012, at 12:53 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Dear Bill,<br><br>On Sunday, June 3, 2012, William Drake <<a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a>> wrote:<br><br>> Maybe not in principle, but in practice…not so clear. NTIA/USG exercises one version of oversight that is consistent with its mandate (and BTW, does so in constant communication with other governments, and increasingly tries to channel their concerns when badgering the ICANN board). <br>
<br>Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean with the above?<br></blockquote></div><br><div>If you want…As you know because you're involved, there is transgovernmental networking and communication around ICANN, just as there is around most global policy arenas/issues; maybe constant was too expansive as a quick generalization, since it presumably varies by country/relations and by situation, e.g. when decision points and negotiations are pending vs. when not. And views expressed in such contexts can influence how the NTIA interfaces with the board in GAC meetings and offline, just as it does how the EC interfaces with the board in GAC meetings and offline. The MAPO and LEA discussions provide obvious recent examples. Personally, I wish more GAC members were prepared to engage more fully and equitably rather than rely on a few to lead the charge, but that seems to be where we are now. This arguably reinforces the skepticism of those who work in the space with respect to the prospect of new ML bodies etc.</div><div><br></div><div>Best</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div><div><br></div></body></html>