<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Milton<br><div>
</div>
<br><div><div>On Jun 13, 2012, at 4:43 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">[Milton L Mueller]<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><br>So ICANN's Board is accountable to....ICANN's Board. And the GAC! You invoke the GAC!<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><br>So, let me see if I have it right: it is a terrible thing to make ICANN report to a UN agency, or governed by a treaty, but it is OK to make it report to a committee of governmental representatives that exactly mirror the UN in membership eligibility, and which is composed of the exact same governments who comprise the UN.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><br>The difference being that the GAC is unburdened by any law or treaty, its decisions or pronouncements do not have to be consistent with its members own national law, nor ratified by any democratically elected entity.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><br>Thank you for making the flaws of the AoC so evident. No wonder the Parminders of the world are dissatisfied. This is grist for their mill, really.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></blockquote></div><br><div>Given what we've experienced and discussed endlessly within ICANN with regard to GAC's inability to meaningfully interface with the PDP, 12th hour objections to aspects of the new gTLD program, insistent channeling of IPR/LEA special interests, etc etc., I'm not sure I get what you're now advocating:</div><div><br></div><div>1. A "stronger" GAC that's more than advisory (as per, it seems, the ALAC proposal)?</div><div>2. A GAC whose members are bound by/reflective of greater accountability, transparency and inclusion at the national level?</div><div>3. A GAC whose members are bound by/reflective of greater accountability, transparency and inclusion at the international level, to be achieved through treaty negotiations (what fun!)?</div><div>4. A GAC that reports to or is even replaced by some UN entity?</div><div>5. A GAC that just goes back into the sleepy hibernation of years past, or goes away?</div><div><br></div><div>I would certainly favor 2. And I'd like to see 3 pursued through an expanded, multilateralized/multistakeholderized AoC, rather than a treaty. 1 and 4 not so much, and 5's not happening.</div><div><br></div><div>It's easy to agree that the AoC has had flaws and limitations in its first iteration. Do you think these are so integral that the model is irredeemably messed up and worse than conceivable alternatives like a treaty instrument and/or new UN body? I'm pretty far from convinced, and think we should be exploring ways of refining and expanding it to provide a new form of global community-wide mutual surveillance and accountability for a hopefully progressively more independent ICANN operating under a properly defined host country agreement etc.</div><div><br></div><div>Care to elaborate?</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div></body></html>