>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>