Hi,

Thanks for the reference.

I disagree, this makes is seem quite possible to me.  If a majority want
majority vote, then majority vote they will vote for and  have.

I thank IRAN and the WSJ for pointing out the folly of my prior
viewpoint on giving GAC parity before the Board.  If their commitment to
consensus is not ironclad in the by-laws, they shouln't be allowed to
have a greater voice.

avri


On 08-Sep-14 13:57, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
> 
> GAC Operating Principle 53
> 
> A Member or Members may move, at a meeting, for these Operating
> Principles to be open to revision. If so moved, the Chair shall call
> for the movement to be seconded. If so seconded, then the Chair shall
> call for a vote to support the resolution. The deciding vote may be
> by ballot, by the raising or cards, or by roll call, and shall
> constitute a simple majority of the Members who are present at the
> meeting at which it was moved for these Operating Principles to be
> revised. If so resolved in favour of a revision of these Operating
> Principles, then the proposal shall sit for consultation for a period
> of sixty (60) days. At the next meeting following the sixty days, the
> Chair shall call for a vote for or against the proposal. The deciding
> vote may be taken by ballot, by the raising or cards, or by roll
> call, and shall be a simple majority of the Members who are present
> at the meeting at which the vote takes place.
> 
> It seems difficult for a move to majority voting to succeed with this
> two-stage process and consultations in between.  All the governments
> and other players favoring the existing procedures would have to
> really go to sleep, exert no power and influence, etc.  How might
> such a scenario play out?
> 
> Best
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Sep 8, 2014, at 12:40 PM, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I’ve been hearing that the GAC is considering changing its
>> decision-making methods to a simple majority as opposed to full
>> consensus for a while (since the BA meeting, I think). Is this
>> actually true? Does anyone know what kind of process the GAC has in
>> place to make a change like that? Would they need full consensus to
>> decide that they want to operate using simple majority
>> decision-making in the future?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Sep 8, 2014, at 6:15 AM, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Wall Street Journal article on current state of Internet
>>> governance.
>>> 
>>> http://online.wsj.com/articles/l-gordon-crovitz-the-internet-power-vacuum-worsens-1410124265?mod=hp_opinion
>>>
>>>  Information Age The Internet Power Vacuum Worsens The U.S.
>>> hasn't even abandoned its Web protection yet, and authoritarians
>>> are making their move. <image001.gif> By L. Gordon Crovitz Sept.
>>> 7, 2014 5:11 p.m. ET
>>> 
>>> The Obama administration plan to give up U.S. protection of the
>>> open Internet won't take effect for a year, but authoritarian
>>> governments are already moving to grab control. President Obama
>>> is learning it's as dangerous for America to create a vacuum of
>>> power in the digital world as in the real one.
>>> 
>>> In March the administration asked Icann, the Internet Corporation
>>> for Assigned Names and Numbers, to suggest a plan for overseeing
>>> the Internet after September 2015, when U.S. governance is
>>> scheduled to end. The U.S. charged this group, which maintains
>>> the root-zone file of domain names and addresses, with somehow
>>> finding mechanisms to prevent other governments from undermining
>>> the permissionless, free-speech Internet built under U.S.
>>> oversight.
>>> 
>>> Instead, Icann set up a process to hand control over to
>>> governments. Under the current "multistakeholder" system, an
>>> advisory group of governments has only as much power as other
>>> stakeholders, such as Web registries, website owners, free-speech
>>> groups and other nonprofits. But in August, Icann quietly
>>> proposed changing its bylaws to rubber-stamp government decisions
>>> unless two-thirds of the Icann board objects. In turn, Iran has
>>> proposed that the government group move to majority voting from
>>> the current consensus approach. That would enable the world's
>>> majority of authoritarian governments to rewire the Internet more
>>> to their liking. <image002.jpg> Agence France-Presse/Getty
>>> Images
>>> 
>>> What will this mean? Authoritarian governments could for the
>>> first time censor the Web globally, not just in their own
>>> countries. Russia could get Icann to withdraw Ukrainian sites.
>>> China could engineer the world-wide removal of sites supporting
>>> freedom for Hong Kong or Tibet. Iran could censor its critics in
>>> the U.S. Website operators could also expect new global fees and
>>> regulations.
>>> 
>>> Such a change "would fundamentally transform Icann away from
>>> being a 'bottom-up' and 'private sector-led' organization and
>>> into a governmental regulatory agency," wrote Robin Gross, a
>>> former chairman of the Icann group representing nonprofits, on
>>> the CircleID blog. "Why Icann would voluntarily choose to empower
>>> non-democratic governments with an even greater say over global
>>> Internet policies as this bylaw change would do is anyone's
>>> guess."
>>> 
>>> The Internet Commerce Association, which represents Web
>>> businesses, warns that the proposal "would transform Icann into a
>>> government-led organization," which is "completely counter" to
>>> the U.S. requirement that the Internet remain free of government
>>> control.
>>> 
>>> In a speech in July, a U.S. Commerce Departmentofficial played
>>> down the danger. "The idea that governments could enhance their
>>> influence within Icann by changing its rules to allow for a
>>> majority vote on policy issues reflects a misunderstanding of the
>>> policymaking process at Icann," said Assistant Secretary Lawrence
>>> Strickling. Wrong. Mr. Strickling and his administration
>>> colleagues have misunderstood how serious other governments are
>>> about filling the vacuum of power with repression.
>>> 
>>> Icann also upset all its major stakeholder groups by ignoring
>>> their demand to make it more accountable absent U.S. oversight.
>>> Stakeholders had instructed Icann to create an "independent
>>> accountability mechanism that provides meaningful review and
>>> adequate redress for those harmed by Icann action or inaction in
>>> contravention of an agreed-upon compact with the community."
>>> Instead, Icann announced that it would oversee itself.
>>> 
>>> A dozen stakeholder groups quickly sent Icann chief Fadi Chehade
>>> a letter objecting. "How does Icann intend to handle the inherent
>>> conflict of interest with developing its own accountability
>>> plan?" they asked. "Why didn't Icann invite proposals from the
>>> community and why wasn't the community involved in the drafting
>>> of the staff plan?"
>>> 
>>> An objection sent jointly by business and nonprofit stakeholder
>>> groups to the Icann board said: "This plan, imposed on the
>>> community without transparency and without the opportunity for
>>> public comment, creates inconsistency, disregards proper Icann
>>> procedure, injects unfairness into the process and defeats the
>>> purpose of the entire accountability examination."
>>> 
>>> Philip Corwin, a lawyer specializing in Icann issues, calls
>>> pushback against the organization "unprecedented." Last week,
>>> Icann agreed to put off the new rules, but only for a brief
>>> comment period.
>>> 
>>> Much of the blame for the splintering of the multistakeholder
>>> system lies with Mr. Obama's naïveté in putting Internet
>>> governance up for grabs. He underestimated the importance of
>>> Washington's control in maintaining an open Internet—and the
>>> desire among other governments to close the Internet. And there
>>> still is no plan to keep Icann free from control by governments.
>>> 
>>> Administration officials pledged to Congress that the U.S. would
>>> keep control over the Internet if the alternative was to empower
>>> other governments or if there isn't full accountability for
>>> Icann. Both red lines have been crossed.
>>> 
>>> If Mr. Obama persists, Congress should block his plan with a
>>> simple message: The open Internet is too valuable to surrender.
>>> 
>> 
> 
>