[MemberPubPol] [chapter-delegates] FYI - in the coming discussion of the WGIG questionnaire

[Fred Baker]

Thanks, Patrick.

> Currently, there is  little organized multilateralism or geographic 
> diversity within ICANN, and none at all in the IETF  and other 
> existing I* structures.

I'm not sure I understand this statement. Define multilateralism in 
this usage? Specifically what are you looking for?

> The question is not if the current structures did something wrong. It 
> is more how we can improve the current structures to make them more 
> inclusive, especially to non-insiders.

I understand the question generally. Specifically, who would you like 
to see included in the ICANN process that has no access today?

> I do not focus, as you do, on a "treaty" organization. AFAIK, the 
> International Red Cross or the International Olympics Committee are 
> treaty organizations in the strict sense. They are nevertheless seen 
> as independent of any government.

I picked that up from Vittorio, Ian, and Franck. I heard it stated that 
only a treaty organization would meet their concerns, and that 
specifically something that was a California Corporation gave them 
additional concerns.

In your second sentence, I think you left out the word "not", right?

Assuming that you're referring to NGOs, yes, I'd be very willing to see 
ICANN become a recognized NGO. What do we need to do to get there?