I agree.

IF the Board has to muster a super-majority to overrdie GAC advice AND the
GAC abandons consensus (the former quite likely, the latter is any one's
guess), then that is a totally different world than the staus quo, one
where governmental power in ICANN is unchecked.

rgds,

McTim


On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I agree with this analysis.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 08-Sep-14 18:22, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>
> >> I can't see why govt would do this.  Think about the current
> >> vin/wine impasse, or discussions GAC's had about any number of new
> >> TLDs.  Simple majority or even super would reduce their individual
> >> influence.  No?
> >>
> >> Adam
> >
> > It drepends on the political situation. A motivated, disciplined
> > faction of governments could rationally calculate that
> >
> > a) we have a majority of votes
>
> b) we are likely to retain a majority
> > for some time
>
> c) we share common interests (or enemies) across a
> > number of IG issues
> >
> > ...and conclude, let's make this thing run on majority of govts, and
> > we will have control of it. This kind of thing does happen in the
> > UNGA, does it not? I am not saying this is imminent in the GAC/IG
> > world, but it does not seem entirely implausible.
> >
> > Milton L Mueller Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse
> > University School of Information Studies
> > http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
> >
> >
>