Does the GAC have power to change its own bylaws, and if so, to what extent?

frt rgds

--c.a.

On 09/08/2014 07:57 AM, 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]
> <mailto:[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]
>> <mailto:[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
>>> <http://online.wsj.com/public/search?article-doc-type=%7BInformation+Age%7D&HEADER_TEXT=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.
>>>  
>>
>