[governance] What could happen this morning in subcom A

[Jeanette Hofmann]

thank you bill, this is helpful!
jeanette

William Drake wrote:
> Hi Jeanette,
> 
> 
>>[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
> 
> 
>>Hi, we might have another opportunity to speak in the next subcommittee
>>meeting tonight.
>>My suggestion would be to have a look at the contributions from
>>Argentina and the EU on para 62. These contributions seem to be regarded
>>the most relevant ones. What do others think, should we comment on these
>>proposals?
> 
> 
> The Argentines just say let's have a forum, which is all but a done deal,
> just have to see how much of a pain the US will be in final negotiations. 
> The EU is more interesting, and this is part of why I wasn't comfortable
> with our statement already saying flat out no change other than internal
> ICANN reform.  The EU fancies itself as carving out the middle ground
> between the US and the Iranians, but their proposal is very vague, and
> when I've pressed them on this, they've insisted that this is
> strategically the smart thing to do---don't really specify the model, just
> invoke principles (I think it's really that they don't have internal
> consensus yet, so this is all they can do, but they don't want to admit
> it).  Well, now we've had Brazil, India, China, Iran, and others get up
> and basically say hey your model is vague, please explain.  Doh!
> 
> The EU says under its "new model"
> 
> -we should not replace existing mechanisms or institutions, but should
> build on the existing structures of with a special emphasis on the
> complementarity between all the actors, each in its field of competence;-
> 
> -the role of governments in the new cooperation model should be mainly
> focused on principle issues of public policy, excluding any involvement in
> the day-to-day operations;
> 
> -the model should include the development and application of globally
> applicable public policy principles and provide an international
> government involvement at the level of principles over naming, numbering
> and addressing-related matters:
> 
> You might join the others in asking for clarification, in particular:
> 
> 1. in what organizational form do they suggest "building on existing," if
> they're calling it new---if they don't want the Iranian Council, what do
> they want (answer is GAC made an IGO but they're shy);
> 2. in suggesting that governments should focus on these principles, what
> would be the roles of other stakeholders in that process;
> 3. if the answer to 2) is just advisory, ask why CS and the private sector
> should greet this as a proposed improvement over the status quo.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill
> 
> PS: Did Veni just get up and say something about sheep?  Maybe the webcast
> was garbled...
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance