[Notes from GAC presentation]

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

Notes on GAC Communique

1.  GAC reaffirms GAC principles and comments on ERC documents.
    Some statements of disassociation attached.
2.  Satisfied with Mission Statements and Core Values.
    Core Value 11: Majority wants government role mentioned
    explicitly, US government doesn't.
9.  GAC majority: GAC is principal forum for the international
    discussion of public policy issues related to the
    ICANN mission and DNS. Germany + France disagree.
11. GAC does not support direct contribution to ICANN budget,
    except for GAC secretariat. Beneficiaries should pay.
12. ICANN must have enough staffing and funing to execute
    decision making and operation.
13. GAC majority: Chair non-voting ex-officiso Board liaison.
    France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland do not support GAC
    member on the Board. Germany: Board should be smaller.
14. Broad ranging dialogue between ICANN Board and GAC.
15. GAC majority: No strong opinion on NomCom, ICANN internal
    issue. Minority, including France and Germany, express
    discomfort with NomCom. Germany: Evaluating individuals
    even after objective criteria would be highly subjective;
    bottom-up represented by top-down. Spain: Discomfort with
    GAC members in NomCom. Malaysia: If GAC delegate, no
    voting power.
16. GAC does not support selecting of staff members of public
    authorities to the Board.
17. GAC stresses internationalization, transparency, fairness,
    geographic diversity.
18. GAC majority support non-voting liaisons to SOs and RSSAC.
    Brazil: Regular participation of SO and AC representatives in
    GAC.  Germany: Voting liaison on CNSO.
19. GAC majority: IANA contact point for governments.
22. GAC supports timely circulation of all policy proposals.
    Germany + Spain disagree.
23. GAC calls for mechanism to allow GAC to put issues
    to the Board directly.
24. GAC advice on public policy matters must duly taking into
    account at policy drafting and decision-taking stage. If
    Board view in conflict with GAC advice, GAC and ICANN Board
    will try to find mutually acceptable solution. In absence
    of agreement, Board will act according to its own best judgment.
    Germany disagrees.
25. GAC supports call for using external expert bodies advice,
    e.g. competition policy, consumer protection, privacy policy,
    IP protection. 
27. Institutionalize ability of ICANN Board to refer specific
    issues to recognized outside experts.
31. GAC expects implementation planning untik Shanghai.
32. GAC encourages ICANN to consider whether it should continue
    to operate a registry and a root server.

Annex 1:
Re 9: France and Germany:
      Due to evolutionary nature of ICANN's mission, different
      organization of government participation may be 
      contemplated in the future.
Re 22:Germany and Spain:
      GAC calls for compulsory prior consultation on public
      policy issues.
Re 24:Germany:
      In case of conflict, decisions of ICNAN Board against
      GAC advice do not prejudice government steps to protect
      public interest.

      
Annex 2:
ITU disassociates itself from parts of GAC statement