[governance] GAC reform

[Izumi AIZU]

At 12:06 05/08/18 +0200, Wolfgang Kleinw臘hter wrote:
>Dear list,
>
>All the discussions around .xxx make clear, that the procedures for the 
>interaction among governments with regard to Internet Governance and 
>between governments and ICANN are not sufficient established.
>
>This case makes clear, that the GAC has a number of weaknesses. The GAC 
>is an advisory body which works on the basis of consensus, but individual 
>governments reserve always the right to express their own individual 
>positions, as they did it for the first time during the Bucharest GAC 
>meeting when the GAC discussed ICANN reform.

Thanks for the interesting observation, Wolfgang.

I am not too sure if the "weakness" above is all that bad.


>The GAC Communique is the only official GAC output, but it has no clear 
>legal status. The process inside the GAC is more informal. The basic 
>constitutional legal document of the GAC is called "The GAC Operating 
>Principles", recently renewed in Mar del Plata in April 2005. The 
>"Principles" are not a treaty, although so they look like. It is difficult 
>to clarify the legal status of these "Principles". I would describe them 
>as "soft law" (like a UN GA Resolution). Certainly, in theory the 
>"Principles" could be transformed into something like a "constitution" for 
>an intergovernmental treaty organisation, which would need a ratification 
>by national parliaments. But I am sure, that the majority of GAC members 
>have no interst to do this. BTW, in such a case there would be a need to 
>clarify the "membership" section, which includes now also "distinct 
>economies as recognised in international fora". Is Taiwan, certainly a 
>"distinct economy" also "recognized in international fora"? And BTW, did 
>somebody explore, what China thinks about .xxx? China is not a member of 
>the GAC.


Just one thing as a fact:
What I understand is that China IS a member of the GAC,

(http://gac.icann.org/web/contact/reps/index.shtml)
but they have not been participatin in GAC meeting for the past
few years, due to their disagreement with the treatment of Taiwan at
GAC. It is a very difficult and sensitive issue in Asian (and world)politics
as you can imagine.

thanks,

izumi


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance