Note: Alexander has also scribed the communiqué part of the session; his notes are available here.
Paul Twomey begins with communiqué. Extensive dialogue of GAC. Dedicated much time to developing a statement on ICANN reform. Attached in appendix to Communique. Dialogue with ccTLD community and ICANN. Joint working groups with ccTLD. Improve interaction between ICANN, local government, ccTLDs. Dot-info country names: Discussed implementation aspects. IPv6: GAC wants ICANN session on this. Consultation process: GAC needs to receive important documents in a timely fashion. Precise language in documents: Internet terms may not be understandable and subject to interpretation.
Statement on ICANN evolution and reform. GAC endorses principles behind ICANN’s foundation. Observations on blueprint and previous document. Note: Some members of GAC don’t support this; annexes to written statement. GAC satisfied with mission statement and core values. (Twomey then reads the mission and core value bullet points from the blueprint in full length.) Suggest revised core value 11; US govt disagrees with change suggestion. (…) Proposal for private-public partnership: Essential to ICANN’s future success. ccTLD principles. Majority of GAC members (except Germany, France) agrees that GAC is principal public policy body for discussion of ICANN. Relation to govts, public authorities crucial for ICANN’s success. Don’t want to fund ICANN, with exception of GAC secretariat. Beneficaries should pay. Funding crucial. Sufficient staffing important for policy-making and technical functions. (…) Board composition: Majority of GAC members supports non-voting liaison function for GAC chair. DE, FR, ES, CH don’t support participation of GAC liaison on board. DE: Smaller board. GAC encourages board to discuss better multi-way communication channels. No strong opinion on nominating committee. Internal corporate governance. FR, DE: Discomfort with nominating committee. DE: Evaluating individuals by blueprint criteria subjective. (…) Structure of nominating committee would mean to replace bottom-up by top-down. ES: Discomfort at having GAC delegate on nominating committee. (…) No view by intl. treaty organizations. GAC does not support public authority employees on board. Transparency, fairness, diversity, representation. Number of regions should be reexamined. Liaison to SOs and adv. committees. Most support voting (?) ex-officio liaison position of organisations on board. (…) Liaison with IANA. Majority support establishment of contact point. Policy-development and process: GAC expects that all proposals are circulated to constituencies, including GAC. Timely notice!! DE, ES: Disassociate from wording. Alternative language in annex. Mechanism for GAC to put issues to board directly. Consultation process should ensure that advice of GAC on public policy is taken into account in the policy-making. Inform GAC on how advice has been taken into account. In case of conflicting views between GAC and board, try to find consensus. Best judgement of board in case of no consensus. DE: Alternative language. GAC supports external advice, in particular: Public policy. Competition, consumer protection, IP protection. Constructive participation by intl. treaty organizations. WIPO’s beneficial contribution to UDRP. Institutionalize ability of board to reach external expertise. Relevant inter-governmental organizations have significant contribution to make. Accountability. Transition: GAC expects close involvement. Contiune to operate registry and root server? Progress on ccTLD delegations needs continued action.
Annexes. Alternative wording suggested by some delegations, in particular DE, ES, FR.