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