-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

I think this is way overstated.

In no way does raising the bar from majority to supermajority give
them a veto.

I can accept being against it, even though I am not, but i see no
reason to call it something it is not.  It puts them on a par with the
GNSO.  You may not want this, but it is not a veto.

I personally don't see the big deal, but then again I believe in
parity and equal footing.  And since it is something I demand for us,
I have trouble arguing against it for others.  I can't get into the
notion that equal treatment is good for us but not for others,
especially in a multistakeholder environment.

Let me repeat, supermajority is _not_ a veto.

And furthermore, it is not a veto by non democratic countries since,
believe it or not some of the democratic countries in the GAC would
have to participate in coming to consensus on the advice.

Argue against it if you must, but don't blow it out of all proportion.
 If nothing else if makes your comment easier to put aside.  So even
if I agreed with you I would argue against calling it something it is
not for a tactical reason.

avri


On 28-Aug-14 07:10, Robin Gross wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Below are my comments on the extreme proposal to amend ICANN's
> bylaws to impose GAC "advice" on the Internet unless 2/3 of the 
> non-conflicted members of ICANN's board (would there ever be such
> a number given the many board conflicts?) are able to oppose the
> GAC "advice" (why are we still calling it "advice"?)
> 
> I've also made a blog post to encourage others to post comments to 
> the public forum here: http://bit.ly/1rBtbKl
> 
> I hope you all will consider weighing-in and standing-up for
> freedom on the Internet by encouraging the board to reject this
> proposal that give non-democratic governments power over the
> Internet via ICANN's board.  It is a very important issue - perhaps
> one of the most important that ICANN has faced since its inception,
> so it is a major change and worth paying attention to.
> 
> Thank you, Robin
> 
> PS:  You can submit comments by sending an email to 
> [log in to unmask] Comment
> Deadline: 14 Sept. 2014 Reply Deadline: 6 Oct. 2014
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Do Not Empower 
>> Non-Democratic Governments' Control Over the Internet with this 
>> Draconian "GAC Veto" on ICANN Board Decisions Date: August 27,
>> 2014 3:50:13 PM PDT To: 
>> [log in to unmask] Bcc: Robin
>> Gross <[log in to unmask]>
>> 
>> Dear ICANN,
>> 
>> This draconian proposal to change ICANN's bylaws would 
>> fundamentally transform ICANN away from being a "bottom-up" and 
>> "private-sector-led" organization and into a governmental 
>> regulatory agency by changing the GAC's role from "advisory"
>> into "primary decision maker" by essentially creating a
>> "governmental veto" on all key organizational decisions.  This
>> would mark a truly significant change in the overall power
>> structure at ICANN that would dramatically empower national
>> governments (some democratic, some authoritarian) over the
>> management of critical Internet resources at the expense of those
>> who participate in the bottom-up policy development process.
>> 
>> This extreme proposal undermines any hope of a bottom-up process 
>> for policy development at ICANN and kills the incentive for 
>> volunteers to participate in ICANN since governments will be 
>> empowered to veto the bottom-up policy that was developed by
>> years of hard work and painful compromises on the part of all 
>> stakeholders.
>> 
>> Ironically, it is often ICANN's own board and staff who do the
>> most to undermine the "multi-stakeholder model for Internet
>> governance", and this proposal, if passed, would be a prime
>> illustration of that fact.  By making additional concessions to
>> GAC that give governments more power at ICANN, the board would be
>> relinquishing its responsibility to provide oversight of the
>> organization's operations.  And since so many non-GAC board
>> members are "conflicted" on issues that are of greatest
>> significance to the org's work, in reality it will take far more
>> than 2/3 of the board to resist the mandatory imposition of GAC
>> "advice" by ICANN.  There is nothing to prevent GAC from becoming
>> a voting body that imposes its majority will on the entire
>> Internet via the ICANN board; and this bylaws change would
>> certainly incentivize such a reaction from GAC.  Since ICANN
>> claimed in its recent determination of the BGC Reconsideration
>> Request 14-35 (which refused to release any information about GAC
>> policy deliberations) that GAC is not a part of ICANN, it is
>> inexplicable why ICANN would choose to give what it claimed in
>> its determination is NOT a part of ICANN the predominate decision
>> making position on the ICANN Board of Directors.  That is quite a
>> quiet transfer of power and resources "away from ICANN" to a
>> non-accountable, non-transparent, non-bottom-up, 
>> non-private-sector-led organization over the management of
>> critical Internet resources.
>> 
>> It should not be forgotten that many of the governments who 
>> participate within the GAC are not democratically elected;
>> meaning citizens in those countries do not have free and fair
>> elections in which people govern themselves; meaning those
>> governments are not bottom-up; meaning those non-democratic
>> governments are illegitimate in their authority and have no right
>> to demand a decision making role over anyone, let alone the
>> entire world via the ICANN board.
>> 
>> Why ICANN would voluntarily choose to empower non-democratic 
>> governments with an even greater say over global Internet
>> policies as this bylaws change would do is anyone's guess.
>> 
>> One of the most precious aspects of the Internet is the ability
>> of activists and the disenfranchised to communicate with the
>> world outside from an authoritarian government'' control by using
>> the Internet.  This bylaws proposal, if passed, will ultimately
>> stifle use of the Internet for both disenfranchised people and
>> those who live in democracies but will still be governed by the
>> GAC via this ICANN Board "veto".  Unfortunately many governments
>> view the Internet either as a threat to their control of their
>> citizens, or as a powerful tool that enables their control of
>> their citizens - this is true in both democracies and
>> non-democracies, and that stifling view will be recklessly
>> empowered by the adoption of this bylaws change.
>> 
>> This is a truly dangerous proposal that would send the Internet 
>> back towards the dark ages when the Crown controlled access to 
>> printing presses and what information was allowed to spread.
>> For the ICANN Board to empower non-democratic governments by
>> approving this bylaws change would be among the worst damage done
>> to the health and growth of the free and open Internet since it
>> was created.  The ICANN Board should recognize its obligation to 
>> promote democracy and protect everyone's use of the Internet,
>> but especially the disenfranchised by not empowering
>> authoritarian governments' control of the Internet with the
>> adoption of this draconian bylaws change.
>> 
>> Thank you, Robin Gross
>> 
>> Note:  I am a member of the Executive Committee of ICANN's 
>> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG), but submit this comment 
>> solely in my personal capacity.
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT/6hiAAoJEOo+L8tCe36HRoAIAKCL5gDUXLx3ZxtYk3LEw+bQ
vcSz3jAeYD4YDPstduBCP3a42gQHUnzWOveX7fc02rlrUfGB+vM6/6+VkMGJxfyx
mijU6CqHovOl5FJjOTlM6PibvNELUeC2UyTmpK6iJLTS+t77pnTarStqWjQCKczz
WVMYWygMWBe3AaC/sZX3eb3llBmphNzQ5/ADk5FhqyeUKBaAjG2CozLtmFnOezm6
FAbb1I8rzPVZ7kXfoXep03FXWk9Rbp3Lj/BSi0Md89GG8DPa4lVdU5a/pFKgIzlM
gGKIFiSFSZwQhsYeLOwBMr1qtWwx/akVeTzrG4vOKBBsqHL8+nm6qSAZtERqblc=
=9Nw6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----