Hi,

I have a certain faith in the fact that the consensus of nations will
not go rouge.  i think the fact that for a consensus of nations to go
rogue means that all of our nations have gone rouge, and i can't imagine
that happening. At least one of them could be convinced to speak out
against insanity.

I do not have that kind of faith in a majority of nations not going rogue.

avri

On 08-Sep-14 15:20, Wisdom Donkor wrote:
> Just wondering what the motivation is that is making the sudden change of
> direction.
> 
> WISDOM DONKOR
> Sosftware / Network Engineer
> Web/Open Government Platform Portal Specialist
> National Information Technology Agency (NITA)
> Post Office Box CT. 2439, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana
> Tel; +233 20 812881
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]
> Skype: wisdom_dk
> facebook: facebook@wisdom_dk
> Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh
> www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh
> 
> 
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> I don't know if they are so much thinking of changing, as one member has
>> suggested it.  But it becomes a possibility.
>>
>> While I have been in a minority position as supportive of giving a
>> consensus based GAC*  parity in considerations, if the possibility of
>> majority vote decisions in the GAC is real, I join the 'non way in hell'
>> side of this discussion.
>>
>>  avri
>>
>> * (i support that for all consensus based AC advice - i really do
>> believe in SOAC parity when standing before the decision makers, i.e.
>> the Board)
>>
>> On 08-Sep-14 13:40, Amr Elsadr 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> H
>>
>