Hi,

Yes Wolfgang…, I’m sure you’re right about hidden agendas. It’s amusing to read public comments submitted in response to the proposed by-laws change by commercial folks citing human rights as a concern. I wish they would show the same level of concern for human rights when debating topics involving registrants’ rights to privacy and FoE on PDP working groups.

Thanks for pointing out your CircleID blog too. I hadn’t read it, and always enjoy being reminded how resilient the Internet’s design was from the get-go. Still…, I hope things never get so desperate as to raise issues of trust between the root server operators. Although this is a pretty effective failsafe, having to resort to it means we’ve messed things up pretty badly. I don’t mean to infer that you are suggesting otherwise, but rather just pointing out how some are using governments’ takeover of the Internet as a scare tactic, when it really isn’t as simple as they would like to lead their audiences to believe it is.

However, it seems (according to the GAC’s operating procedures) that changes in their own operating procedures doesn’t require consensus, but rather a simple majority vote of members present while the vote takes place. I’m not saying that’s going to happen. I really have no clue how predisposed GAC members are to a notion of majority voting to provide Advice vs. consensus, but to rule it out completely would be (IMHO) ill-advised. Probably yet another reason to avoid the proposed change in the by-laws.

Thanks again.

Amr

On Sep 8, 2014, at 1:48 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Amr
> 
> here is another reference
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140403_black_helicopters_for_the_dns_what_happens_in_2025/
> 
> BTW, one has to be very careful in this minefield not to get misused by false friends. There are many parties with an own agenda behind the bushes.
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von Amr Elsadr
> Gesendet: Mo 08.09.2014 13:41
> An: [log in to unmask]
> Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Wall Street Journal on ICANN
> 
> Thanks for the reference, Bill.
> 
> On Sep 8, 2014, at 12:57 PM, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> [SNIP]
> 
>> 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?
> 
> I have no clue to what extent the GAC members would be in favour or against a change in their procedures like this one, but I sure hope you're right. In the event that the ICANN board ignores the list of public comments against the proposed change to the by-laws regarding rejection of GAC advice, a combination of these two changes would sure make a mess of things.
> 
> I find it really frustrating that the actions of the ICANN board play right into the hands of those who would like to see the IANA transition process fail, seemingly motivated by little more than partisan prejudice in local U.S. politics. Instead of working with the ICANN community to make this work, they provide fodder for articles like this one in the WSJ to discredit the transition, and weaken the argument of multistakeholderism as a viable alternative to multilateralism.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> 
>> 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.
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
>