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

[Veni Markovski]

At 08:44 20-06-05  -0700, Fred Baker wrote:
>OK, I will define "access"
>
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=access
>
>If one wishes something to be more inclusive, more open to someone whom it 
>is presumably not open to now, they are wishing for someone who is now 
>disenfranchised to have greater access.

Fred, governments are not happy with the GAC, although so far all 
recommendations or advises by the GAC have been taken not only for 
consideration by the staff and/or Board, but actually have been implemented 
in decision, resolutions, etc.

To make it more understandable: imagine what would have been if ISOC was 
listening to its chapters the way ICANN listens to the GAC, and following 
recommendations? Imagine how the world of the Internet governance would 
have been different, should ISOC had been the all-wanted international 
organization to deal with public policy, instead of spending quite a huge 
portion of its resources and time on the IETF only. It would have been not 
only a different, but a better world. What we are facing today is partly 
due to the fact that ISOC was not there to take the lead. It remained 
"neutral" and blamed the chapters for being "noisy and self-serving".

Luckily, ICANN is not so superior and not only listens to, but also hears 
the concerned voices of its friends. And changes.

veni