+1



2014-08-29 11:20 GMT+00:00 Grigori Saghyan <[log in to unmask]>:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> +1
>
> On 29.08.2014 2:52, Robin Gross wrote:
> > I see no reason why authoritarian non-democratic governments
> > deserve "equal footing" with legitimate democratic bottom-up
> > processes.  Many in GAC are exactly this: non-democratic and
> > authoritarian governments where the people are not allowed to
> > govern themselves through free and fair elections.  These govt's
> > have no legitimate right to claim they deserve "equal footing" to
> > rule over anyone, let alone the DNS.
> >
> > "Equal footing" might be a catchy slogan that sounds nice on its
> > surface to those who care about equality.  But giving tyrannical
> > govts "equal footing" to rule the root is a bad idea when you think
> > it through.
> >
> > Robin
> >
> >
> > On Aug 28, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> >
> >> Signed PGP part 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]
> >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> >> Comment
> >>> Deadline: 14 Sept. 2014 Reply Deadline: 6 Oct. 2014
> >>>
> >>> Begin forwarded message:
> >>>
> >>>> From: Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]
> >> <mailto:[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]
> >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> Bcc:
> >> Robin
> >>>> Gross <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> - --
> Grigori Saghyan
> PGP Key ID: 0x48E4D5DC
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (MingW32)
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUAGHnAAoJEBp2GIFI5NXcsU8H/i8S6gBQ4hHlR2uSeowqVapq
> FY7FrTs0AUM/47zIrFx31darAj/wQ9AnuVkY/8CNhufb4ilH6T+7wM+8nhHFEaeZ
> GINmmo/aXmflcDNTFtsm7ZkraUj9/4VhCD/7GmxBQb5qXLJCZqjowqPtiUKVcrj3
> PIJxRXG+zRQZUXZbubUqDLfIyIVa7DgBWzmMFhr3YoN4+cunu9jpjulHvK4U/nl3
> zUjo08aZmik+J/Fvubk4djlsCMoHOEopxqjpX60yv1B1j5GlP4lYBB2XtnWcazvM
> sWJ8gSWWszLEhflj+rhuBs4YrOYdS1pV5rFoq7+JOIzkCF4OAqRTZaq4OqQeVGU=
> =Otm9
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>



-- 
Olévié Ayaovi Agbenyo KOUAMI
Responsable Département CERGI-Education (http://www.cergibs.com)
CEO de INTIC4DEV (http://www.intic4dev.org)
SG de ESTETIC  (http://www.estetic.tg)
Membre de ISoc (www.isoc.org <http://www.isoc.org/>) & du FOSSFA (
www.fossfa.net)
ICANN-NPOC Communications Committee Chair (http://www.icann.org/ et
http://www.npoc.org/)
BP : 851 - Tél.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 98 43 27 72
Skype : olevie1 FB : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé - Togo